by Robert McOuat
Why do elections always pose impossible decisions? Are we ever happy? Like Flo with progressive insurance, I’d think USA is prepared to “bundle” political decisions, so even if we only have to make one grand decision, then the rest of the decisions are made for us. For example, we have two boilerplate issues this voting season. First, which old white Christian to vote for? And second, which rights are more important – the baby’s or the mommy’s? Neither choice is easy. Maybe our decision would be easier if we bundled more issues into one. The idea of extending the political platforms could help simplify the decision-making process for voters.
Once voters find an issue on a platform that they either strongly agree or vehemently disagree with, the rest of that party’s positions essentially become a convenient package deal. It’s just like when you’re at the ballpark – you’re either a die-hard Red Sox fan or a Yankees fanatic, and everything else just naturally falls into place. No need to agonize over each stance or policy. And it’s really about winning and losing, just like the Red Sox and Yankees rivalry. The political teams try to vilify each other while simultaneously rallying their own “fans.” It’s a classic us-versus-them mentality, just like in the world of sports. They know that voters are far more likely to latch onto a few key “high-profile” issues, while the other minutiae and nuances tend to get glossed over.
So in this particular election cycle, where we’ve got a choice between two ornery old white dudes and the ever-contentious debate between mommy’s rights and baby’s rights. What if both of these decisions are lose-lose? Can we pick another platform issue that might draw in the fans? Expanding the political platforms could truly be a game-changer. Voters could simply pick the “team” they vibe with the most based on their signature issues, and then the rest of the platform becomes a convenient package deal. Throw in some celebrity endorsements to really seal the deal, and voila – instant voting decisions for the masses.
Although not an official platform for each party, I did draw up a mock extended platform (see chart below). The voter does not have to agree with their own team’s platform as much as despise the other team’s. The result is the same, so it’s helping to put polarizing issues on the platform. For example, we added the category of “billion-dollar divas”. Nothing polarizes a voting public like two rich divas. Everyone seems to hate them. Which do you hate more? And for Jocks, we added the Kelsey-Brady debate. Again, maybe you hate one, or maybe you love one, but either way, your bundled decision is made!
| Key issue | Red Team Position | Blue Team Position |
| Abortion | YES! We love baby rights. | No! We love mommy rights. |
| Celebrity Jock | Tom Brady | Travis Kelsey |
| Billion Dollar Divas | Kim Kardashian | Taylor Swift |
| Racism | There is no room for racism in the USA (just make sure the candidate is old, white, and Christian). | There is no room for racism in USA (but just make sure the candidate is old, white, and Christian). |
| Free market capitalism (neo-liberalism) | OF COURSE! (BUT blame the rich for being rich – with the concession – at least others are poorer than me so at least I am ahead of them | OF COURSE! (BUT I will complain about the commercialization and commoditization of everything – while I buy more and expect the government to bail me out (tax debt, credit card debt, tuition debt) |
| Class system | If I am rich, then the government should not take my money. If I am poor, then as long as I’m not in last place (someone I can see is poorer than me)If I am middle class, then your vote is conceded to the blue team | What class system? We are all egalitarian. |
| Religious Freedom | YES! (BUT the team only gets my vote if the team agrees with fundamental Christianity and that God makes all the real decisions around here). | Yes! (BUT my religion is persecuted and any lost election is because USA doesn’t have religious freedom). |
| Local politics | Blah blah blah -someone runs something that I don’t know about | Blah blah blah someone runs something that I don’t know about |
| Civil actions | Blah blah blah – some civil action that I don’t know anything about | Blah bah blah – some civil action that I don’t know anything about. |
| Healthcare | YES! As long as I get cheap medications. I’m not paying for anyone else’s medications. | YES! As long as I get cheap medications. I am not paying for anyone else’s medications. |
| Education | Let’s not fund it! | Let’s ask teachers to do more! |
When posted side by side, the platforms are quite similar. In fact, on most issues, it’s not about the issue. It’s about who do you blame when the issue blows up in everyone’s face. Probably the biggest difference between the red team platform and the blue team platform is that the red team not only acknowledges a class system but also differentiates its message to fit each class (except the middle class). On the other hand, the blue team is committed to the concept of egalitarianism.
Why do elections always seem to pose impossible decisions? Are we ever happy? Like Flo with progressive insurance, I’d think USA is prepared to “bundle” political decisions, so even if we only have to make one grand decision, then the rest of the decisions are made for us. Just like Flo from Progressive simplifies insurance decisions by bundling, why can’t we do the same for polcitical elections and all our cultural decisions? the new bundling package is simple: instead of choosing between two candidates who were yelling over each other like toddlers fighting over a toy, why not simplify the voting process?
This is just an initial proposal. We could escalate – add social issues galore! Environmental protection could come attached with dog versus cat issue! Once we ‘bundle’ those decisions— red/blue practically sells itself! One undeniable truth amid all its perplexity, people don’t like perplexity. Just simplify the decision. Bundling: hard decisions made easy!
Robert C. McOuat 
Leave a comment