I've been asked to write about the US presidential election, which as most people know is uniquely exciting this year. I'm the farthest thing from an expert on US electoral politics, but allow me to offer some perspectives as an ordinary voter. I hope it's of some interest! Here are some aspects I think are most interesting about the process:

Getting more people out to vote

The prospect of a REAL race, without a sitting president or VP, has encouraged a huge increase in "turn-out", that is, the number of people voting. Turnout is running about three times higher than in the last election. I'm really happy about this, because in my view – and in the view of the US Constitution – voting is not only a privilege, but a responsibility for every citizen. Unfortunately, we tend to take this somewhat for granted in the US, and turnout in the last few presidential elections was barely 50% of eligible voters. That's embarrassing! I'm happy to see more people voting in these preliminary contests (called the state primaries) and hope that the November election will show the same increase in turnout.

Polishing America's tarnished global image

One of biggest criticisms many Americans – even many Republicans - have about President Bush is that he has tarnished (another word for "blackened")  America's image in the world. People say this for different reasons – some say the war in Iraq has made us look like an aggressive invader rather than an upholder of universal values of democracy. Others say that not signing the Kyoto pledge to reduce greenhouse emissions makes the US unable to be a credible leader in global efforts to reduce pollution. But whatever the reason, there's a widespread feeling that our next president must work hard to brighten America's tarnished image in the world. Our core values are essentially about individual freedoms, rights and responsibilities. Our core belief is that all people should enjoy these freedoms regardless of where they live or what political system their countries choose. Despite frequent speeches invoking them, the Bush Administration has not consistently demonstrated these values. I hope that our next president will behave, speak and act in a way that our global allies, trading partners, and even opponents can respect. In terms of global image, both Democratic candidates seem certain to present American more positively abroad should they become president- they are both moderately-spoken people who have demonstrated awareness that the US needs to work with other countries and can't go it alone. And while the Republican nominee, John McCain, is not always a very diplomatic speaker – he can be very blunt and direct – he's also a practical, reasonable individual with personal experience of foreign countries and cultures. I have to think that he's better suited to represent us abroad than the current president, who always looks uncomfortable when he's not in Texas or the White House. A lot of people I know say that the "image thing" is high in their minds when they choose who to vote for – as an American living abroad, it's definitely going to be on mine.

 Taking the politics out of science

This is an area of particular concern to me as a science publisher – and of course to many scientists around the world. The Bush Administration has a long record of "politicizing" science. This has taken two main forms: one, making policy decisions, such as withdrawing support for stem cell research, on personal/religious grounds. The second way science has been politicized has been in government reports that edit out data that don't support a certain policy. The best-known example is the Administration's frequent assertion, in official "scientific" reports, that global warming is an unproven "theory". This is not only bad science, it's made us look foolish in the eyes of the world. Clinton has spoken out about "ending the war on science" if she becomes president. Obama has made similar statements about "depoliticizing" science and "taking it away from the right wing". McCain views global warming as "the most urgent issue facing the world". Science is not on most people's list of top priorities when they vote, but the good news is that no matter who becomes president, the future looks brighter for US – and global – science.

 The rise of independent voices

I see this in both the voter side and the candidate side. More and more Americans – estimates range from 30-50% - are identifying themselves as independents rather than members of a political party. Even people who register with the two major parties are acting more independently - many experts predict that in a race between McCain-Obama or McCain-Clinton, some people from each party may decide to "cross over" and vote for the other party's candidate (for example, some Republican women might choose to vote for Hillary Clinton to become the first female president). I think that's a good thing – people should make up their minds based on the circumstances of the particular time of an election, rather than simply saying they "always" vote one way or the other – seems lazy to me. On the candidate side, a lot of people think Mike Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, might still decide to join the race as an independent. The fact that nobody finds that notion silly shows the greater acceptance of third-party candidates and the relative decline of the two parties in a world of a wider diversity of opinions. I think that's great!

 Can we please KISS (Keep is Simple, Stupid)?

While from the outside our electoral process looks pretty straightforward – one person, one vote, the candidate with the most votes wins – this year's election has revealed the true complexity of the party nominating systems, where state primary votes result in delegate who may or may not vote for the candidate they're “assigned” to, etc. Each state has its own rules. I've watched some political experts on TV and they are all struggling to understand it well enough to explain it! It will be interesting to see if, after the election, there's enough concern about this to drive reforms to this system. Political parties are not mentioned in the US Constitution, and all of these rules about primaries, conventions, etc. have evolved over many years. I have an MBA but I can't follow all the math and probabilities that political experts are trying to explain. This election shows that we could make this whole system a whole lot simpler – and probably less expensive, as well.

 Uncertainty doesn't mean instability

Nobody knows who the next president will be. But the beauty of the US system is that no matter who wins, there will be a peaceful transition of power, as has always been the case throughout our country's (short) history. At a time where many countries struggle to have "free and fair" elections, or to have their elected leaders take office safely, I think that this aspect of US elections is something the world takes for granted – but it's a very powerful symbol of how a messy, sometimes-ugly democratic process doesn't have to lead to chaos. In 2000, when I watched President Bush's inauguration on TV, I was moved to see Al Gore standing next to Clinton and behind Bush as he took the oath of office. The election was hotly contested and the ending controversial – but after everything was settled, Gore was still standing there to support the new president who had beaten him. Next January, it will be George Bush's turn to stand behind the new president – whether it's McCain, Clinton, or Obama – as they take his place, and he will applaud along with everyone else.

转载本文请联系原作者获取授权，同时请注明本文来自Sharon Ruwart科学网博客。
链接地址：https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-4114-17164.html

上一篇：Playing with a Dead Language
下一篇：China's First Lunar 成语: What Should it Be?