A New (U.S.) Order?

by jgr80

If you are age 46 or less and from the United States, you have never voted in a Presidential election that has not had a Bush or a Clinton running on the ticket.

With Creepy Hilldog out of the race, the 2008 Presidential election in the United States puts an end to two incredible dynasties. That is, if Barack doesn't choose her as his veep.

It's taken its effect on voters.

"Obama picked the right campaign slogan talking about change. I think the US is in desperate need of change not just in relation to who is running the country but also in rebuilding its identity on the world stage," says Liam Hyland, 31, of New York, NY.

Somehow two of the most dysfunctional families under the media spotlight continue to have a stranglehold on world affairs. I mean, clearly, they are full of integrity,they are honest, they are articulate, and honest.

In the early '70s, universal voting age in the U.S. was entrenched as 18 years old (it would have been interesting if it had been 8 years old).

If you were 15 years old in the last election without a Bush or a Clinton, that would be the youngest age you could be and still in the next election. Senior Bush first ran as veep to Reagan in 1980 (and won). So if you were 15 in 1977, today you would be 46. That's a long time with very little in the way of democratic choice. Heck, even if they had Blacks and Hispanics and Women and no Bushies or Clinties on the tickets before now, you still only have two parties.

The CIA estimates that the median age in the US is 36 point something. Get rid of all the youngins and that number jumps to around 43 ("youngins" denotes those aged under 15. Quite obviously, since we're talking about voting age, 18 would be a better number to use... but the CIA doesn't have that info as readily available. So there is a bit of an aberration here). The average voter in the United States doesn't know life without a Bush or a Clinton on the ticket-- without Bush or a Clinton at the head of the table.

This data is not scientific by any means, but by these statistics, it seems that the US is one of the most politically inexperienced countries in the world. This couldn't be exemplified any better than the last eight years under the current president... Junior Bush.

In Canada, for example, the CIA numbers suggest the median voting age is around 49. If you are 49 from Canada, you've been able to vote since around 1977. That's 8 federal elections, all of which had more than 2 parties-- and several new and viable parties emerging during that time, with plenty of leaders coming and going.

The U.S. has had 7 federal elections. Each controlled by two parties. All of them with a Bush or a Clinton.

The U.S. system is a recipe for political apathy (not that the constant change in Canada is a better recipe against apathy [although it's certainly better for democracy]). Everyone 46 and under has seen the same old same old every election. It's supposed to be democracy. Looks a lot like a shared monarchy.

People have been talking about change in the U.S. for a long time--say 12 years or so-- but haven't been changing the people they send there.