RTP#49: Political View

Politics is the last thing I would get involved to it’s not that I don’t care about my country or I don’t want to help people or I don’t want to make a change for my country. In fact to make a remarkable positive change is one of my missions in my life but for me there are other ways to do it, not just politics. For me politics sucks because it destroys the peace in a person’s life in exchange for power alone. Similarly, when a person gets into showbiz where in you get fans, haters and people eye every move you make. The common ground here is getting famous wherein it could be a blessing and a curse.

Election’s coming, am I voting? NO! I’m not even registered because I didn’t really want to.

Why?

1.) I don’t think my vote would matter anyway, it’s not like my vote is 1:1,000,000 and not the real 1:1. That’s my answer to the people who says “sayang yang boto mo”, I mean the only time I’d feel a little guilt is that if the person I’m going to vote lost because of a single vote or needs my vote to force a tiebreaker.

2.) If I’m still going to vote for the person who I’m sure is going to win with a landslide then I would just waste my time doing it. That would be an answer to those who says “para maexercise mo yung right mo to vote”. Again in this particular scenario my vote isn’t a factor.

3.) A similar scenario as #2, let’s say I voted and the one I chose lost but I believe if that candidate won he/she could really run things well and make this country a better place to live. Now is the person who won against the one I voted really is going to do better? The answer is maybe, we’ll see or the least is hope so.

4.) Take a look at our previous presidents one of them got impeached and the current one’s almost got but lucky for her the people chose to let her finish her term instead. My point is that voters vote for someone and then years later they want to replace them with a new one already because the current leader doesn’t run things well. Is it the voters or the candidates?

For me a better way to determine a leader is clearly not through voting but more of proving. There are also candidates and these candidates will have to go to a series of tests. Not only written exams but also practical exams wherein they would be given real situations and then they would have to find an answer then execute it [basically there would have to be an actual result] then they would be graded for it as well.

Then whoever gets the highest grade of all becomes the president then the second highest scorer becomes the vice president and so on. Assuming that there’d be a law that there’d be 12 candidates wherein as mentioned there’ll be a president and the vice president and then 10 senators. Who chooses the candidates? Who would give grades to the candidates? The current president is the answer for both questions for he/she knows what it takes to get there. What about the lower positions it will be appointed by the higher ones [a senator picks a congressman, a congressman picks a governor and so on]. The appointed officials can be expelled anytime especially when they break laws or whatsoever. Biases can be present but I think this system could be better than campaigning for the voters’ vote. Where a lot of promises would be made and a lot would be broken. And sometimes it could be decided simply by money and popularity.

Another thing, these candidates only state the things that they would do if they would win. Ever wondered what if they don’t? That’s the best question that you can ask them. What are you going to do if you’re not going to win? Think of it it’s not only that if you’re in the position where you can make a difference. For me even though you’re not elected you can still do things to make this country better. I think the best candidate is the one who has plans and is willing to implement it even though he lost.