Politics of clutter and then some

This afternoon, as I was driving to East Coast Bagels in Irvine to pick up lunch, I saw numerous election signs lined up along Culver street.  I find it to be an insult to voters’ intelligence to assume these political signs somehow influence their vote.  These, along with all T.V., radio, newspaper and magazine political ads contain no useful information for voters, are heavily biased, exaggerated and often times inflammatory or false, undemocratic, and should absolutely be banned.  Why would a nation that prides itself in freedom and democracy allow this and other special interests detrimental to social and public welfare influence government and legislation?  How can money be allowed to wield such a force in election outcomes?  The American political system is, much like many of its institutions, e.g. its criminal justice system, in need of a little restructuring.  Such a system heavily influenced by money and special interests is self destructive, and it’s only a matter of time when drastic action will curb its stranglehold.  Proponents of free speech should take note that money and political ads silence the voice of the majority by introducing corruption in the process of fair representation.  So the current system is anti-free speech and should be dealt with accordingly.  Elections should not be about raising and spending money mercilessly.  Such a system opens the door to excessive special interest influence.  This is not government for the people, by the people.  This government serves the interests of the few who can afford to donate big money and hire expensive lobbyists.  "The long and bitter 2010 campaign season drew more than $3.5 billion in spending, making it the most expensive nonpresidential vote ever, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, a watchdog group." - CNN.  How much of this money is to provide voters with balanced and unbiased information to help them make informed choices?

Sadly, these election signs do influence voter behavior, which brings us to the next point:

Voting, like driving a car should be a privilege, not a right.  All voters should demonstrate a basic understanding of the candidates and issues they vote on.  All drivers are required to demonstrate sufficient knowledge of the rules of the road, and driving erradically inflicts far less damage to society than uninformed voting.  So why not license citizens to vote?  How can voters lean heavily on one party, only to vote for the other in a measely two years?  Because most people vote based on their immediate financial welfare, that's why.  If John Doe had lost his job during Bush, and two years after voting for Obama is no better off, is it fair or rational to hold Obama, or even Bush to begin with accountable to his immediate state of welfare?  Shouldn't John Doe dig deeper to understand the root causes of long term unemployment rather than waste his vote based on which way the wind is blowing?

And to those apathetic voters who disengage because they perceive all politicians as corrupt or ineffective, your license to vote should be forever revoked.  Picking the lesser of two evils is still better than doing nothing.  Either that, or all citizens should be forced to vote as it's done in Australia to avoid the pitfalls associated with voter apathy and the undue influence of the right or left extremists.

A drive down Culver in Irvine, CA - Election signs as far as the eye can see