Our democracy makes it possible to select one from two to act as our leader for a period of four years.
No president has ever been politically removed during his tenure. Only one has resigned. And upon the death of the president, it is the vice-president who takes over.
Regardless of party principles our leaders once elected are accepted by all the people to represent all of us in all situations. However, in preforming their functions as leaders they usually are guided by party principles.
This year's selection leaves us again with two possibilities.
One of our leader possibilities proclaims to be a maverick who also claims not to be wed to his party principles, yet he runs representing his party. He seems to have been a dissenter all his life and often gone by his own rules which seem to develop at the time they are to be applied.
His religion seems to be best expressed in his distain for other countries and the sacred nature of the market place. And on both these counts he might be considered to be a religious zealot. He has also been described as a decedent of “military royalty.”
The other leader possibility is a younger man. If selected he'd be the first non-white man to be elected. That alone seems to be a cultural problem in this country. He has no royal family connections and might also be described as a dissenter. Some believe that all liberals are dissenters and not to be trusted in the same way as conservative dissenters.
He is guided by his liberal party principles and doesn't seem to dissent from those much but instead seems to embrace them. Born of a Muslim African father and white Midwestern (white) mother, he becomes suspect. His opponents raise doubts as to his “real” Christianity which also leads them to question his loyalty to this country.
I often question the loyality of TV ministers. especially as to their professed Christianity. Most of them seem to be the money changers within the temple. I also mistrust the wisdom of their followers.
What a country!
The voters of this country are going to vote for one of the two candidates as their leader, pretty much on their consideration of these preceived characteristics. I believe that I've presented the significant elements on which these two will be judged, everything else will be external to these public perspectives.
Conservatives cannot make themselves vote for a liberal, so we know that they will vote for anyone not a liberal. On the other hand liberals will of course vote for the liberal.
The split between the two parties is about 45% to 45% of all those likely to vote. It is the swing voters who count. They are about 5 to 10 % of the voters.
Because of the wars and the economy, that swing vote is expected to vote in greater majority for the Democrats, the out party this time, but a difficult prediction to make.
We don't know which way it will go, especially as one of our states situated between two foreign countries has produced a vice-presidential candidate who is expected to assure the conservative vote and win over much of the swing vote to the Republican party.
What is there to say? Parliamentary governments don't work much better at selecting their leaders either.
But what does it say about our system, when only 5 to 10% of the voters of this country are the real decision makers. They will decide who will be the leader of this great democracy for the next 4 years. Eight years ago it was a few voters in Florida that made the difference.