Jumping the gun on campaigning could lead to apathetic voting
Posted on September 6, 2007
The studio audience settles down as the MC introduces the next performer. The disconcerting hush spreads to living rooms across the nation as she steps up to the microphone. Meanwhile, on another station, two former comrades duke it out, breaking a former alliance and shattering any chance either of them had of winning the big prize. Flip the channel again and witness a little backstabbing as the losing team turns on its weakest link.
This three-ring circus of reality razzle-dazzle has nothing to do with Ryan Seacrest, “Big Brother” or voting someone off the island. I’m talking about the 2008 presidential campaigns. For me, this drums up humorous images of Simon Cowell belittling Hillary Clinton or John McCain winning immunity from Republican infighting for a week.
Unfortunately, it also exposes a major problem with this election cycle. Perhaps you, too, have taken notice of how early many of the top candidates started campaigning. Barack Obama officially declared his intention to run as early as February of this year. Hillary one-upped that by declaring in January. These declarations came nearly two years before the actual election takes place.
In terms of reality TV, that makes for a boring show. A season of “Survivor” only lasts a few months and by the end of the season, I just tune in at the end of the broadcast to see who got the boot. For the sake of the nation, this election must not follow that pattern.
The formerly energized voting populace already shows signs of “end of season” apathy. In the beginning, these people might have cared about a candidate or a particular issue. Now those same people see the same old song-and-dance every time they turn on election coverage. Their energy dissipates into a muddy pool of temporary alliances and cheap sound bytes. The ideas that make candidates unique cease to matter as time drags on. Voters recognize the candidate only by base or obvious trademarks like “the black guy,” “the woman” or “the guy that walked around naked.” Eventually, after the primaries have passed, these candidates will be boiled down to Republican and Democrat.
Voters should not, by any means, make decisions with that kind of mindset. If a voter only latches on to a face and where that face falls in relation to the party line, then that voter ignores his or her real chance at progress.
Regrettably, these early campaigns encourage that behavior. They lack the spontaneity and zeal created by shorter, high-energy campaigns. This system actually works well for the major runners, because they only have to pay for face time. Result: the people get stuck with a President who knows the how to advertise but has no idea what to do with the national deficit.
In-depth coverage of individual personalities and agendas means that parties have less of an impact. Forcing the candidates to run as people obliges them to earn the respect or adoration of the voting public instead of depending on party support and propaganda.
The first step: shorten the campaign season back to something reasonable. Packing more information and energy into a shorter length of time inspires the proper amount of attention and curiosity over the entire span of the campaign. Next, add a series of weekly challenges hosted by Julie Chen. For instance, contestants have to save American jobs from going overseas using only their feet. At the end of the season, the voters will decide who gets the prize: a big office, a red telephone and an inherited war.
Kevin Irby is a junor SMAD major.
About Us | Supplements | Advertising | Contact Us
Website design by Erik Pitzer ('07)
