Whenever there are democratic elections, there are discussions, debates, and arguments on how the results would define the future of the government. There are various graphs and charts that feature in the newspapers, TV channels and magazines trying to foresee the outcome. There are rallies, meetings, and gatherings where the contestants (political parties) try to woo the voters in order to gain their trust and more importantly, their votes.
The scenario is much the same wherever in the globe the elections occur, yet, there is a special importance that is given to the current US elections. Is it because the outcome of the present Clinton Vs Obama battle affects a lot of international decisions, which could eventually affect the global political scenario as well? Or is it because the world is waiting for a lot of answers/justification from the US over its major decisions in the past few years? I think the former reason would be more appropriate in the present situation. The media all over the world are sensationalizing the political battle in the US.
It can be agreed upon that the media has a lot to gain in this time: covering all the reports, results, debates and statements made during this time and reporting it to the people. There is always a lot of profit in it, especially now. What I fail to comprehend is the fact that many many people in the US, who have nothing to do with the elections (other than cast their *priceless* votes) have begun talking extensively about the happenings. I’ve seen many blogs (personal blogs) filled with information, views, predictions about the current elections. I wonder what they stand to gain from all this. Would anyone pay them for their views? (Maybe, but 90% of the time, not) Would any of their ramblings matter? (Other than a chain woo-ing system where a person who is totally backing one of the contestants influences more people who knows him to do so too) Would whatever they say, in any way, affect the results of the elections? (Directly… NO!)
So why do they do it? The only explanation that I can come up with is the psychological effect that such discussions have on the people participating in the discussion. Only when you discuss, are opinions put forth. Only when you hear contradicting opinions that your opinions are challenged. When your opinions are challenged to an extent where you have nothing you can say to support yours, it falls. So, an effective speaker can magically change a group of people’s opinions to match his own. Thus, adding more votes to the side he is supporting.