The US election, much like the UK vote on the European Union, shows a nation divided. But there are some similarities that I find interesting, especially in these times.
1. Democracy
Voting is meant to be a process whereby the people have their say. For the EU referendum, the majority of voters voted to leave the EU. The result? Backlash. People unhappy and calls for a second referendum. These people couldn't cope with democracy. For the US election, the way the voting system works, Donald Trump won. The result? Backlash. Rioting, protests, even calls for California to leave the United States! It's much like a child throwing a tantrum when it doesn't get its own way.
2. Tolerance
People are always rattling on about 'tolerance' and how we must accept people who have opposing views to our own. But where is the tolerance from the people who voted on the losing side? The UK referendum resulted in the Leavers being branded racists. The Trump supporters have been labelled bigots and misogynists. It seems that tolerance only works when everyone is agreeing with you.
3. Controlling the world is a difficult job
It's hard enough for leaders of small countries to do their job. The EU is a massive area of the world and to keep everyone happy is difficult. The US is also a large area of the world, with people having widely varying opinions. Is it really a surprise that not everyone is in agreement? The calls for breaking down the land into smaller chunks might not be a step backwards. The UK might be better off being four separate countries again. The US might be better off with more control being given at the state level. Smaller areas are much easier to govern. In times gone by, kings would go to war to expand their kingdoms. Nowadays, people run for president or try to set up an organisation to ally different lands and then become ruler of that organisation.
4. Voting systems need work.
The EU referendum was done by 'popular vote', which most people consider the fairest method. But UK general elections are not. In the most recent general election, I didn't know how to vote. The local MP was doing a good job and I would be happy for him to remain in place. Plus, he was the most popular by far (he had previously won with 64% of the votes) so it was pretty much guaranteed that he would stay. But I didn't want to vote for the party he stood for. A vote based on his character would mean a vote for a party I disagreed with. A vote for the party I wanted running the country would just be a wasted vote, as that party's representative had no chance of getting in (only 10% of the votes). Although the MP remained in his position, it was only with 35% of the votes, but it only goes to show that the votes were more split: the nation was divided, and; with more choice there is more uncertainty.
If we look at the 2015 UK general election, we find that the Conservatives won with only 36.9% of the votes. This means that 63.1% of the country didn't want them in.
For the US election, the Electoral College has a similar system to the UK constituencies, but with each state having a differing number of Electoral College Votes, based on various factors. It's not entirely fair and, as the 2016 presidential election revealed, it is possible to be elected without having the highest numbers of votes. But then, the same was true in 2000 (and also in 1888).
But look on the bright side: a greater percentage of the US population wanted Donald Trump for president (47.5%) than the UK population wanting David Cameron for Prime Minister (36.9%).
5. Campaigns need to build up rather than pull down
Every campaign I've seen in recent years has been more about pulling the opposing parties/views down rather than talking about the benefits of their own standpoint. In the UK, political parties slag each other off. For the EU referendum, much of the campaign was aimed at how much worse the country would be if you voted against their campaign, not to mention the amount of lies that was presented. For the US election, there were insults and police investigations. Does anyone believe in what they stand for? The result of the EU referendum and the US election is about how bad things have become. Even the people who voted in favour seem to talk about it being better than the alternative. For all elections, including the EU referendum, there is hope with every option. The hope may be different, but there is still hope. It seems the story of Pandora's Box has more reality than we think: people focus on the evils that come out and forget about the hope that's mixed in there too.
6. Votes are a reflection of the times
The world changes: sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. But whatever our own opinions, the world does change. Some people call it 'progress' whilst others think it's a step backwards. Many people felt the UK vote to leave the EU was a step backwards, but also many people felt that the EU was an interesting experiment that had run its course. Either way, the vote was a reflection that with all the multiculturalism of the UK, there are now so many different views it is even more difficult to remain united.
The US has a reputation of being the 'world police', trying to dictate to other countries how they should be run (which is not always agreed by other nations). Although this is a generalisation, it is a prevailing theme. Is it a wonder, then, that the person elected as leader has views about how his own country should be run?
7. Strength is found in independence
Whilst for individuals, there is 'strength in numbers', it doesn't work when the numbers are so large due to multiple countries being involved. Many people in the UK feel that we are stronger being independent than being with the EU. A prevailing theme is that we need to regain control of our own country again. The US have elected a leader who wishes to regain control of his own country too. There doesn't have to be unity or alliances for there to be peace, just the allowance for other nations to do things their own way. We used to call this 'tolerance'.
8. Stock markets
With both the EU referendum and the US election, stock markets took a hit immediately after. Why? Because the large companies are not being responsible with their wealth. So focused on money, they take bets on the vote. Commentators for the EU referendum said it was going to be a win for the Remainers, so the companies took bets that way. When the result was different, a huge sum was wiped off the stock market immediately. For the US election, commentators said Hillary Clinton was going to win, so the companies took bets that way. When the result was different, again, a huge sum was wiped off the stock market. The good thing about the stock market response to the US election is that it might have helped stabilise the UK economy after the EU referendum. But the question remains: when are the big companies going to stop being so money-focused and start to take their responsibilities to the world seriously?
No comments:
Post a Comment