…being over!

i didnt vote, ive never voted, and chances are pretty decent i wont ever vote. at least, not for office. i might vote on propositions, ammendments etc. but i wont vote on a politician, unless i actually LIKE the person. studying history, there have been maybe 10 presidents i would have actually voted FOR, and all of them were before i was born, or before i could vote in 1 case. i like obama, but not quite enough for me to vote for him. i likeD mccain, before he became a patsy to his party. but even before, i wouldnt have voted for him. bill clinton i might have voted for, but im not positive. both rooseveldts, maybe jfk, lincoln, jefferson, jackson, madison. i wouldnt have voted for washington, to be honest, because when you only have 1 person running that has ANY chance of winning, its not needed. maybe polk, just because i like him, but if i were around at the time, prolly not.

i dont strongly believe in voting. i dont believe in democracy, or a republic, to be honest. at least, not on this scale. 300+ million people voting, when a good portion of them know even less about politics than i do, and im 20. just doesnt seem like a very good idea. the greeks had a great idea with democracy. each democratic city voted on their leaders, but their cities probably didnt ever exceed more than 1million. if that. even today, as a united country, they only have 11million. and, ofcourse, the only people who could vote were those who could UNDERSTAND politics, which was most in places like athens, but in our country not quite so much. different ideologies.

the issue i see with having a republic is, much like rome, the representatives ARENT us. sure, we can choose which are most like us, but obama is still a christian, against abortion, doesnt agree with gay marriage (though he believes that people should have the right to belief and act differently, thankfuly). we arent on the same page in many areas, and he was by far my choice in this election. governing 300 million people is difficult, even if they were all republican, or all democrat. but what makes it even more difficult is this divide that keeps growing. soon-to-be president obama talked about needing to get rid of this break between us, and while i dont think it is possible to mend, it is possible to make it less pronounced, perhaps. winning by what…200 electoral votes, it is obvious americans are not of the same mind, and thusly having a single person control any amount of it is a bad idea, i say.

i go for a tetrarchy. let the west have their president, the “mid-west” (im not sure if we count as west, or mid-west. ive heard both), the northeast, and the south east. sure, the “president” of the mid-west would have far fewer people than the other 3, much less money, power etc, but at least we would get what we did in 2000 and 2004. the northeast and the west voted almost unanimously blue, the mid-west and the south almost unanimously red. this way each area of the country would get their regional leader, chances would be better of alabama always getting the republican if they so chose, california always their democrat if they so chose. only issues i could really see are us and NM if we were mid-west, or arizona, utah if we were all west. and maybe a few states back east. it might get less done, but its hard to get less done when the government doesnt do a whole lot most of the time anyway, yeh?

all in all, im pleased with the election. aside from the judicial branch, all of our parts of government are democrat. and while i dont consider myself democrat, i am much more left than i am right. here is hoping that our new president and representatives can fix some of the mess of the past 8 years. and hopefully bush and crew wont do anything else dumb in their 2 months left.