When it comes to elections, like most things, America does it bigger than anyone else (and with an electorate approaching 300 million perhaps that is not suprising). I've been interested in the presidential and congressional elections in the United States since 1988 when (to my suprise) ITN (Independent Television News) did an experiment when they simulcast (i.e showed the same feed as) the ABC News network's coverage of that election
Of course as I was only 14 at the time, I couldn't stay up for the whole election as I had school the following morning, however in 1992 (having stayed up all night to watch my first British general election) I thought that I might try the same for the United States and this time I decided to watch the BBC's coverage. Sadly no video exists of that programme, but you can see some of the BBC's graphics at Mike Afford's website (who was the person who came up with them).
It is fair to say that I was more than suitably impressed and so in 1996, watched that year's election and saw the re-election of President Clinton (explained by the BBC in only the way that they can)
However, when it came to the 2000 election, the UK was undergoing a bit of a broadcasting revolution (although I was only partially aware of it). In the UK, the BBC were still at it but had been joined on the scene by Sky News (now available to most people thanks to the minidish satellite television technology) and so whilst I watched Election Night on the BBC, most people were watching Sky News however despite falling asleep shortly after the Florida projection (confident that whoever won the state would win the presidency) I was up and doing when the BBC broke with this newsflash at about 2.20am EST
and we all know what that led to of course. By the 2002 midterms I too was fully satellited up (which mean a question I have never had to ask since, "Do I watch the Music Man film on Sky Movies or the US elections on CNN?"). Of course the mid terms were going to win and it gave me my first chance to see how the Americans reported on their elections
This got me pondering and so for the 2004 Presidential Elections I decided to virtually endorse a candidate (not being an American of course I couldn't actually endorse) and after careful consideration I plumped for Senator Kerry and so asked those Americans I knew online if they would consider voting for him at the election. One of my friends from Ohio said "You do realise that you are treading on thin ground?". When I asked why, he showed me why.
The Guardian newspaper's letter writing campaign seemed like a good idea. Concerned residents of the UK (and other countries) asked the residents of Clark county in Ohio to (like me) consider Senator Kerry. The county's reaction to these requests was forthright to say the least. One letter that was printed in the Guardian read as follows:
KEEP YOUR F***IN' LIMEY HANDS OFF OUR ELECTION. HEY, S***HEADS, REMEMBER THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR? REMEMBER THE WAR OF 1812? WE DIDN'T WANT YOU, OR YOUR POLITICS HERE, THAT'S WHY WE KICKED YOUR ASSES OUT. FOR THE 47% OF YOU WHO DON'T WANT PRESIDENT BUSH, I SAY THIS ... TOUGH S***!
Thankfully by the 2008 election season things had calmed down a bit and with both major parties having to select new candidates I decided to virtually endorse two candidates. On the GOP side Gov. Huckabee (for his policy on health) and Sen. Obama on the Dem side (for his policy of change) but wondered if there was something else I could do, so contacted both campaigns and asked if I could campaign for them in the UK. The Obama campaign thanked me but said they had more than enough people to help, but the Huckabee campaign welcomed me with open arms and when the Gov. narrowly lost in South Carolina in 2008, I got a honourable mention in his concession speech (as part of the people from Europe who used their free cell phone minutes)
So when the election came I virtually endorsed Sen. Obama and was watching a programme called Washington Journal on C-Span (being shown on the BBC Parliament channel) before the election and noticed they were talking about how important Ohio was to the Obama campaign. I noticed that they accepted international calls and so asked them "Can Obama win without winning Ohio?" (a question that seemed to slightly throw the Obama campaign manager)
Now, four years later on, I find that with the US deficit rapidly reaching (and indeed breaching) $16 trillion
(that's a 16 with twelve noughts after it) and neither of the mainstream candidates either willing to accept it or do anything about it, I have decided to do something very odd by US standards and that is endorse a candidate who isn't likely to win. That candidate is the Governor of New Mexico,
Governor. Gary Johnson who is running under the Libertarian Party ticket. The reason I am backing him is for the simple reason that if both main parties are going to ignore that debt, then let's choose someone from neither party who can perhaps knock a few heads together and get some sense going in the corridors of Washington. A forlorn hope, perhaps, but if enough people come to the same conclusion, who hopes what can happen? After all, remember this unexpected suprise in 1998?