Obama/Romney - How to Elect a Good President in USA

This is my 100^th blogpost. I also spent a great part of this summer in the101th country I’ve been to, Japan. More about lovely Japan later. Sorry for not writing for some time.

There is a power struggle going on in the two most powerful countries on this planet, USA and China. The aspirants would literally stop at nothing to become the chosen one. The United States is the self styled bastion of democracy. But choosing a president there is not very easy. Is character less important than issues? Fred Greenstein in his book The Presidential Difference: Leadership Style from FDR to George W. Bush gives an excellent analysis of character traits and their balance as winning formulas.

Carefully listening to who really says what, gets gutted by the incessant slandering, mud-slinging and outright lies. Following the issues, whether they be the economy or social issues, in the debates is difficult because the language used is so confusing even for experts in their own fields.

 Photo source: 

Consider women’s issues. Would a candidate in any kind of election, who is seeking women’s votes, really be able to help women’s causes overnight? 17% of the 435 member House of Representative in USA are women. Compare this to Rwanda 56.3% and Cuba 45.2%. Are women's affairs any better there compared to USA?

Consider the issues important for the youth and young families. Do lawmakers really understand them? Only 8 of the 100 US senators are under 50. Over 65% are over 60 years old. Is being young now the same as having been young a few decades ago? Who can tell that? The young have no experience and the 'old' have forgotten.

The official system of popular votes and electoral college is extremely complicated. Here is a good explanation of how it really works, in case you are interested.

US Presidential Power/Influence Scope is Rather Limited, Paradoxically

Photo source:

Of the 230 million people of voting age in the USA, how many realize that the president of the USA can actually do very little in real life? Since America wants to be seen as the “only” superpower, the US president needs to be seen as powerful. The president cannot be seen getting publicly snubbed by anything. This is the irony of being the “most powerful” among democratically chosen rulers. 

In reality, the president has to co-operate and bargain with other politicians and interest groups, often the very ones he has to be seen as ‘attacking’ and ‘punishing’ during the campaign promises. A president can’t just start ordering about. He can suggest initiatives, which might then be promptly blocked by the congress, especially if the opposing party has majority.

Political Climates Define Presidencies

Photo source:

Many people like to think that the personality, character and political beliefs of a president are decisive factor. There is much more to the game, which decides what is achieved during the presidency. Strong presidents like FDR, Nixon and Clinton have clashed with the judiciary and had to give in. But the judiciary and most importantly the congress never challenged George W. Bush as he expanded presidential authority greatly in the post-911 climate.

Even the wise people choosing the recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize thought, rather unsuccessfully, that they would pacify the world by giving the prize to Obama, a wartime president. Earlier sitting US presidents favoured with the Nobel Prize; Woodrow Wilson (1919) was too ill to start new wars while Theodore Roosevelt (1906) was very vociferous in wanting USA to join the First World War.

Photo source:

Is it wise to elect a president who will be there for just one term?

Every sensible American president wants to be re-elected and thus naturally doesn’t risk doing unpopular things. These unpopular actions might be the very things, which the country desperately needs, but nobody dares to do them for fear of being unpopular and losing re-election.

Does it then make sense to evaluate a president’s track record during the first term? How can one tell truth from lies, especially in politics? Besides, most of national level initiatives and actions begin to show results only after years or even ten years.

Presidents like Jimmy Carter, who try to do the right things for America and international relations (as they see it from a moral standpoint) are shown as being weak by the hawks and are never re-elected. Presidents like George W. Bush, who do everything to appear “strong” might, in reality be perfidious and take the nation on a fast track to ruination, yet they get joyfully re-elected.

Humorous guidelines for choosing a Good President

Forget your political party affiliations for a while. Dump the idea of automatically voting a democrat or a republican because you have always done so. There are other candidates too: Gary Johnson (Libertarian), Jill Stein (Green party) and Virgil Goode (Constitution party). Why not think about the qualities you would like to see in your president?

Let’s take a look at some past candidates and try to find ideal qualities personified.

Puritan Dream: 

If we think about sexual scandals, or rather a lack of them, the ideal model candidate would be – Samuel J. Tilden of the 1876 elections. He won a clear majority of the popular votes, but the electoral commission decided to choose Rutherford B. Hayes. Tilden confided on his deathbed that he had never slept with a woman. Records don't mention sleeping with the other sex.

Photo source:

Gay 'Agenda': 

James Buchanan, the 15^th president lived with William Rufus DeVane King for 16 years as a ‘close and dear friend’, even while King was vice president (for 45 days till he died). Don't ask, don't tell!

Photo source:

 Stealing for Self-improvement: 

The role model would be Millard Fillmore, the 13^th president (1850-1853), who taught himself to read by stealing books. Lot's of drive in him!

Photo source: 

Unusual Marriage: 

The 300 pound, great 22^nd and 24^th president, who at 49 married 22-year old Frances Folsom (the youngest ever first lady). Cleveland was the executor of her father’s will and her guardian. Definitely has the balls for being the big chief.

Photo source:

Draft dodging: 

Grover Cleveland, when drafted, paid a Polish
 immigrant $150 to take his place in the Union Army. Dodging by seeking and getting a student deferment – Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, Dick Cheney and Mitt Romney. Great opportunist, a very handy quality in politics.

Woman Candidate: 

As a Spiritualist, courtesan, advocate of free love, divorcee, publisher and first woman stock broker on Wall Street, Victoria Claflin Woodhull in 1872, was much more controversial than Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachman. They put her in jail on Election Day in 1872, charged with obscenity as she exposed an adulterous affair. Never a boring moment with such qualities.

Photo source:

Pets with Funny Names: 

John Adam’s dog was called Satan. Herbert Hoover’s German shepherd dog was called King Tut. Lyndon Johnson had Beagles named Him and Her. Teddy Roosevelt had a Garter snake called Emily Spinach. George Washington had dogs called Drunkard, Taster, Tippler and Tipsy. Family rated fun and warmth of a slightly naughty kind.

Photo source: 

Syllables in the candidate’s name: 

The more the better. Winning candidates with more syllables won 28 times, while losing candidates had more syllables in the name only 12 times. Ken-ne-dy (3) won and Nix-on (2) lost in 1960. Not exactly conspiracy theory, but fun to know stuff. More info about syllables in candidates' names here: 

Photo credit:

If you think religion is the deciding factor, you might be in for a surprise. Only 60% of voters know that Mitt Romney is a Mormon while 81% say that it doesn't matter in the least. 17% believe that Obama is a Muslim. Overall, 67% agree that a president should have strong religious beliefs, while 66% oppose churches or religious institutions endorsing candidates according to Pew Research Polls.

Still confused? 

To help you navigate the difficult issues and choose either of the Democrat/Republican candidates of 2012, Obama/Romney, here is a nice voting advice application published in far away Finland. 

There's a small challenge with the language as it's only in Finnish, sorry! Well, how much of the issues at stake and what 'they' do about them would you really and honestly understand, even if it weren't good ol' English, ask yourself!

Photo source: Screenshot of Helsingin Sanomat Voting Advice Application.

Well, it's your choice and everyone has to live with it. You can't blame, God, Elohim or Allah for what you choose.

Good luck with your choice!

Fundamentalism of the Christian Kind is not Growing!

Liberal people all over the world love fundie-bashing. 

It is so snug and comfortable to show how deluded they, the fundamentalists are, how unreasonable, selfish and evil they are. Just put in any fundie you’d love to hate into the formula – the Muslim extremists, the Nazis, the fundamentalist Christians, the NeoCon Republicans, the Taleban – the list is endless.

Photo Source:

How Much Damage Religious Fundamentalists do?

If we look at the death toll of killing campaigns and mass deaths, the fundamentalists lose to secular killing campaigns straight out. The Inquisition or the Crusades total death toll lack a few zeroes, when compared to Mao and the Spanish Flu.

Now, we can argue that religion was involved in these massacres as well.

Stalin attended a theological seminary and almost became a priest, Mao was fighting eradicate religions, and the annihilation of the Native Americans was in the name of progress and religion too.

But religious persecution, of the Christian fundamentalist (“I am right and all others wrong” kind) did a lot of damage by terrorising entire societies. There is no negotiation or room for differences with them (do the Taleban sound familiar?)

Emperor Charlemagne in 782 had 4500 Saxons, unwilling to convert to Christianity, beheaded. Peasants of Steding (Germany) unwilling to pay suffocating church taxes: between 5,000 and 11,000 men, women and children slain in one day on 5/27/1234 near Altenesch (Germany). Population numbers in those days were also lower than today, so killing 16, 000 persons removed a significant part of the population. Islamic fundamentalists and terrorists justify their actions by calling Western colonialism and post-war Western Imperialism by the chilling term al-Salibiyyah: the Crusade". (Karen Armstrong 2000).

Can Religious Fundamentalists do Any Good?

Religious fundamentalists function on a “If you are not with us, you are against us” principle made so notorious by George Bush. Extremists religious communities are very close knit and they support members much more than social security. Membership does have privileges, but they are withdrawn the moment you start dissenting. Earlier, dissenters were ‘removed’ too.


Photo Source

I am not making any apology for any fundie. I’m awfully glad that the people of India did not put their faith in Hindu fundamentalism in the 2009 elections.

Liberalism and Not Fundamentalism is Rising?

Copernicus Marketing Consulting and Research, an American firm that helps Fortune 500 companies make better marketing decisions, reveals that the number of Americans who consider themselves fundamentalist is growing at a much faster rate than those with less orthodox or evangelical views has no basis in fact.

• In 1972, 18% of American considered themselves ‘liberals’
• In 2002, 29% of American considered themselves ‘liberals’

• In 1972, 27% of American considered themselves ‘fundamentalists’
• In 2002, 30% of American considered themselves ‘fundamentalists’

For various reasons, we have had slight difficulties in getting figures for Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia.

Yes, it seems that 'fundies' of different sorts put a terrible twist to things, mostly for their own benefit. We could be snug and say that 'fundies' are deluded as they call all others deluded. But then doesn’t it become a case of the blind leading the blind? I'm comfortable with people taking different roads or rather making different roads as long as they don't force it on me.

Here’s a very nice article about Christian Fundamentalism by Mark Gordon Brown, which inspired me to write this post.

Ref: Karen Armstrong, The Battle for God: Fundamentalism in Judaism, Christianity and Islam (p.180)

Does Voter Turnout Tell Anything About the State of Democracy?

The higher the voter turnout, the healthier is the democracy. This is a common assumption. 

Photo Credit: Ian Britton

This is not always true. The Soviet dictator, Stalin always got 99,9% votes. In Soviet practice less than 50% voter turnout meant that elections were not valid and thus in Stalin’s single-candidate elections 99% turnout was reported. 

The reportedly 64,1% (on 7.11.2008) is said to be the 100 year highest ‘record’ turnout in the US presidential elections of 2008.

How Does US Voter Turnout Compare with Other Countries?

Photo source:

• In the Iraqi elections of 2005, there was 71% voter turnout
• in the Russian presidential elections of 2008 it was 68% 
• in the UK parliamentary elections of 2005, 61,3% turnout
• in the EU elections of 2004 the turnout was 45,5% (lowest at 7% in some areas). 
• In the Iranian Majlis or Parliamentary elections of 2008, the Ministry of Interior figure claims voter turnout to be 52% from Iran’s 49 million eligible voters. 2,200 candidates were, however, barred from running on the grounds that they were not sufficiently loyal to the Iranian revolution. Turnout in the second round of Iranian elections was only 25% and winning candidates got only 25% of electoral support.

In the US, 52,6% of voters supported the democrat candidate Barack Obama and the whole world has applauded his election. Russian President Medvedev won the 2008 elections with 71,25% of electoral support. EU member countries Germany, France and Britain claimed that these elections did not meet their criteria for democratic elections, but along with EU promptly congratulated the winner President Medvedev.

Photo source:

• In Iraq, the winning party with 42 women got 48,1% of electoral support though very few people would consider Iraq to be a safe and functional democracy. 
• In the UK 2005 elections, only 21% of the electorate actually supported the winning party candidate Tony Blair.

Statistics can be utterly misleading if we are to draw any conclusion on the state of democracy in any elections.

What About Enforced Compulsory Voting in Democracies?

Should the US consider enforced compulsory voting, like in Australia or Malta where they have 95% turnout?

Photo source:

There are currently 32 countries with compulsory voting. Of these, 19 countries like Australia, Lichtenstein, Belgium and Singapore enforce it. Of the 30 member states of the OECD ten have some kind of compulsory voting.

The main argument in favour of compulsory voting is that it then represents the will of the majority and not only those who vote. Further, it can eliminate malpractices in providing or hindering access to vote. Thirdly, it forces people to think about controversial issues and take a stand.

The main argument against compulsory voting is that voting is a civil right like free speech and not a civic duty like paying taxes. There are also religious strictures against involvement in politics as those among Jehovah’s Witnesses, which would make compulsory voting oppressive.

Photo source:

Does Low Literacy Mean Low Voter Turnout?

Another fallacy is that literacy corresponds with high levels of voter participation through ballots. 

Photo source:

A low literacy does not necessarily mean a country's turnout rate will be low. There is no significant statistical correlation between literacy and voter turnout. 

• Low literacy countries such as Angola and Ethiopia have achieved high turnout rates.

Some people, when trying to explain situations in Western democracies or EU elections, interpret that low voter turnout is actually a sign that things are going smoothly. Others warn that voter apathy means, on the contrary that voters show their mistrust and fatigue by not bothering to vote.

Funny Incidents from the 2008 US Presidential Elections

• A judge in Ohio ruled that homeless people could use a park bench as their address in order to register.

Photo source:

• A voter couple flew home from India just to cast their ballots.

• NASA astronauts on board the International Space Station sent a video message encouraging people to vote as they did, from 200 miles up.

Photo source:

• Democrat candidate Obama's Ohio volunteers knocked on a million doors on Monday 3.11.08 to gather votes. That very night, a Florida official locked himself in the Seminole County election headquarters and slept overnight with the ballots to make sure everything was clean.