ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Politics and Social Issues»
  • United States Politics

The Primary Election: Obama or His Opponent?

Updated on May 8, 2012

Which Name to Mark on the Ballot

Today, May 8, is North Carolina's primary election. I went to the poll this morning. I like to do that, to vote in person. It lets me get a feel for the turnout and to see who is doing it.

Anyway, the lead choice in the primary section of the ballot was the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. I was surprised to find I actually did have a choice. I thought Obama was running unopposed, but there were two names there.

The first, of course, was Barack Obama. Just below it was a candidate I'd never heard of, one N. Opre Ference. That's not how they punctuated the name, but I'm pretty sure they just got it wrong. After all, it's government workers who make up the ballots, so you can't expect too much.

I had no idea there was a primary competitor to the incumbent. It provided me with an alternative. Since I can't in good conscience cast a vote for Barack Obama, and I'm a registered Democrat, I was in need of one. Ference is the one I was left with. I think I said there were only two names.

So that's what I did. I voted for Ference to be the Democratic Party's nominee for president. Whoever it is can't be any worse. It didn't hurt, and it was the right thing to do. I encourage you all to do the same.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • profile image

      CJ Sledgehammer 5 years ago

      Thank you for your thought-provoking, thorough, and intelligent response, Attikos, it is exactly what I expected from you. :0)

    • Attikos profile image

      Attikos 5 years ago from East Cackalacky

      Thank you for the compliment, CJ. It may not be justified, but it's flattering just the same.

      Elections no longer matter. The establishment, to use the old malcontent's term, has become so big and powerful it doesn't have to accept reform, and it has shown us time and again it will not. So many people now depend on it for their comfortable lives and social privileges that its inertia makes it the famous immovable object. The trajectory of the national state's growth in authority, wealth and size hasn't significantly changed in eighty years. It continues through one administration and congress after another. Control by neither of the major political parties makes a longterm difference. It is rising along a classic exponential curve.

      As you know, such a curve ends in a rise that approaches infinity. Since nothing in the real world can be infinite, a singularity occurs at some point along that curve, and with that event the processes driving movement along the pathway collapse. Analogously, the moving object passes through a boundary beyond which it has fallen totally into a black hole. We cannot see or imagine beyond that point. The object presumably ends in oblivion, but we can only speculate about that.

      With the Bush and Obama administrations, especially with the latter, the explosive growth of the US national state has reached the steep part of the exponential curve. You can measure that by spending and debt, arrogated authority, accumulated wealth, regulatory activity, or any other applicable standard you like. They all show it now racing along the terminal section of the curve.

      It doesn't matter who we elect to the white house or to congress. The Democrats tend to push progress toward singularity slightly above the curve path, the Republicans to lower it a touch, but it returns to average in another election or two.

      The questions, of course, are what will we find beyond the approaching singularity event, and when will we reach it? We can guess at the latter. Let's say that politically it will coincide with the parallel progress of technology, which is also running along an exponential curve. Both may approach infinity, which is to say hit the singularity boundary, about 2040, according to some. The former question is unanswerable. My own suspicion is that the end of the United States as we know it will not be an easy thing for us, and that we had better have our individual and familial ducks in a row before it happens if we intend to survive it, but that's just my projection. YMMV.

    • profile image

      CJ Sledgehammer 5 years ago

      No, you can't win them all, and in politics, "we, the people", lose them all.

      I find you to be one of the most intelligent people I've met on Hubpages. Do you actually think, "we, the people" choose who our president will be? Or, do you think it is an elaborate ruse?

      Peace be with you and yours - C.J. Sledgehammer

    • Attikos profile image

      Attikos 5 years ago from East Cackalacky

      My man Ference has gone down to defeat with only twenty percent of the vote. You can't win 'em all.