reader suggestions/ Voter apathy

What the fuck man. I'm really drunk, so I can't think of anything to write about. What do I do? I turn to my readers for answers. Well ain't that cute. BUT IT'S WRONG!!!!! Seriously, y'all, this may be reminiscent of 8th grade, but goddamn are you motherfucker stupid and uncreative. So much so that I value my homework over your paltry suggestions. So here goes: Voter apathy:

Vote or… don’t
America is a nation of choice. The concept is almost inescapable, from the new flavor of your favorite chips to the color of your cellphone to who will stay on your favorite T.V. show; the American way seems to be “you choose!” It is strange, therefore, that over half of the United State’s population (50.7% in the 2000 election) should choose to ignore the opportunity to make the most important choice they can: voting in government elections.
There are a number of reasons, or more appropriately, rationalizations, that half a nation of idle people don’t do right by their country and vote. Many people are under the impression that their votes aren’t going to affect the course of the election and so it would be a waste of energy to go out and vote. Others have lost faith in the election process and even its integrity and declined to vote for that reason. Yet another is the physical work needed to vote; not only is there a very bureaucratic registration process to endure, but often times many miles will lie between a person’s home and nearest voting facility. For some, the misguided notion that they oughtn’t let their ignorance of the issues and candidates’ stances on those issues affect the election. The biggest factor in voter apathy, however, is the idea that the country (or in the face of globalization and looming world-wide environmental catastrophe, the world) is going to hell in a hand basket anyway, so voting serves no purpose. This current election is a fantastic illustration of that phenomenon, as the United States’ political machine has somehow managed to spit out a slew of candidates more irrational and incompetent than the much-reviled George W. Bush.
The effects of voter apathy are far-reaching. The main and most devastating of these is that the people in this country to whom voting is most important are radicals. At this point in history, the two opposing radical sects that vote the most and therefore have the most clout are fanatic moralist Christians on the Right and fanatic moralist humanists on the Left. Globally, those that would be self-determining are faced with an ironic and somewhat stupefying choice: Use it or lose it. If it isn’t in the name of Jesus or saving people from themselves and each other, almost every single presidential hopeful running in the 2008 election is standing on a platform of control and moral legislation. It cannot be stressed enough that anyone who cares about democracy, liberty, and the power of the United States constitution is bound by duty to vote in every election, and more than that, vote with their actions.
As much as I’d like to, I cannot place all of the blame on the voters. I stated before that a leading reason for voter apathy was that many voters have lost faith in the election process. Unfortunately, the election process is a ridiculously inefficient and discouraging one. In days of old, members of the Electoral College would act as campaigners, going from door to door explaining the stance of their candidate and taking votes, and voting themselves in reflection of the votes they collected. It was decided that the point at which their vote collection would transform into a direct electoral vote was at the state level. In these times of mass media and instantaneous information access, the logistics of campaigning no longer require such a staff, and if the electoral college was replaced with a direct democracy, people living in states that lean predominantly towards one political party or another would have their votes count towards their supported candidate instead of lost in a state-wide landslide. Another solution to the voting problem that would most likely furnish decent candidates would be to do away with the primary voting system. Especially in the upcoming elections, where a rational voter may agree with points on both sides of the party line, voters are limited to registering and voting for those in their official party, limiting their ability to choose the candidate that’s really right for them. Ron Paul, running in the Republican Party, is the perfect example of this aspect. He is a champion of issues that both republicans and democrats agree with, but because he is limited to votes from his party, democrats who are trying to implement damage control to assure that fascists like Hillary Clinton don’t win the Democratic primaries can’t also assure that Ron Paul will win against fascists like Rudy Giuliani. It’s all very complicated, but I guarantee that eliminating the primaries would allow people to let their voice be heard, giving salience to their votes and consequently voting incentive.
Historically, the most effective tactic to battling voter apathy is legally requiring citizens to vote. In countries like Australia where voting is compulsory, voter turnout runs at about 90%. It may seem a bit hypocritical to instate a law to protect choice, but as the old saying goes: “You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.”

Fuck the troops

Incidentally, fuck my last update. You won't be seeing your requested transformed into flowing prose anytime soon (yeah yeah too late, fuck you for that too!) so here's some real shit, yo.

I don't know if my readership has been keeping up with politics lately, but if they haven't, allow me to inform: It's the race to the 2008 seat of stupidity, and aside from meaningless banter about healthcare or economics, the hot topic of this campaign is the "war" in "Iraq". Among what most (lazy-minded) people would consider the rational candidates for representative of the people, the creed is "damn the war, bless the troops", the common belief being that even though the war is wrong, the troops are all heroes and victims. However, this could not be farther from the truth.

You must pardon the fact that I just wrote "this could not be farther from the truth". It was base and unoriginal, and I apologize. Moving on, let us consider some points. First, that there is no draft in place, so every soldier still serving has chosen to do so (it can be argued that not dodging the the draft in 'Nam was also choosing to go there, but I think in this case the semantics of "decision" are far more clear cut). Now let us see what that implies about the type of person who is being shipped off to maimery or death: They are obviously completely clueless about the reasons this war is going on, because any sane or good person would not take up arms unless that person's life or way of life was threatened. Would-be refuters would argue that the American way of life is being threatened, and I would agree, except that the source of the threat is certainly not from the Middle East. In fact, I postulate that the biggest threat to the American way of life is from within, but that's another update.

As I have said, aside from a direct threat to life and liberty, going to war is a dumb idea, but then why are so many people joining the military? Could it be because joining the army is a way to pay for college? That couldn't be, unless someone was so bereft of (in)tuition to to think that killing/getting killed was a clever alternative to getting a job, finacial aid, or a loan. So is it because soldier's desire to kill is so strong that they must join the military? It's possible, but it stands to reason that it would be much easier to just kill people locally, so travelling all the way to Iraq and going through training seems like a lot of trouble for something that could be more easily accomplished (and beneficial) at home.

That being said, I can safely say that most people enlist to fufill some ill-informed notion of freedom without realizing that government-employed, half-educated hicks running around with guns (or as the founding fathers described and eschewed as a "standing army") is as far as you could possibly be from furthering freedom. In fact, I don't feel too strongly for the police either, and current NYC events seem to show that the standards of professionalism and intelligence have fallen to a dismal level. That is why I say, "Fuck the Troops".

Many will ask, "Duh, what about the terrorists 'n' shit?!?!?" To that I will say: Fuckin' worry about it if it happens. If you are so super-worried you can't be consoled, then form a local militia. Tis the safe and Founding Fathers-approved method.