Election day is close and most of us have made up our minds about who we are voting for. We are tired of the ads and the obnoxious Facebook statuses of those that think they are political geniuses. However, despite all the buzz about the election, many still feel that they do not have a good view of either candidate. Very few voters feel confidant about their choice because it seems as if we are choosing “the lesser of two evils”, so to speak.

The Economist perfectly articulates this in their article: “America could do better than Barack Obama; sadly, Mitt Romney does not fit the bill”. While this is a lengthy article, it is exceptionally insightful into both candidates history, their promises, and an analysis of what the future could hold.

They portray the pro’s and con’s of President Obama’s current term, including his successes in averting a depression contrasted with his administrations bashing of big business. Then they point to the biggest problem with Mitt Romney: his views have changed more and more as the election has progressed. As he has changed to fit some of the Republican parties extreme views, the Mitt Romney that successfully governed a democratic Massachusetts has disappeared.

The most important point the article makes is the problem of political parties. Both President Obama and Governor Romney have pandered to the extremist views within their party that makes working in a bipartisan government almost impossible. They have become so polarized that it makes choosing a candidate the equivalent of choosing between a rock and a hard place.

Do you think that Romney has changed too much over the course of the election? Do you agree that both candidates have become less desirable when attempting to pander to their parties? Is there a way to improve the party system that we have? 

Advertisements