Barometer of quality

As the election approaches, politicians' support is solidifying and intensifying as they hope for some conversions and final decisions from the undecided. But, no matter how difficult the last several weeks have been, a presidential candidate cannot gain a majority vote in the country's plurality or "first-past-the-post" system. In this "winner takes all" system, the candidate with the most votes wins, while others are left with nothing. When multiple candidates compete for a single position, however, "vote splitting" is unavoidable. As a result of the rule of minority, a politician who has a strong voter support can win.

The final rallies may determine the eventual outcome. As a result, rallies have become a competition among politicians and their parties to see who has the largest turnout. Only the thousands of participants would be boasted about, an exaggeration that would be at odds with a more reasonable estimate based on the projected number of people per square meter. It has become a convenient approach to produce figures that are reinforced by the camera's careful angling to appear as though there are a large number of participants. Indeed, in order to attain this number, parties would use a variety of gimmicks to entice a large number of people to attend, even if many of them have their own agenda or reasons for going. Some people, for example, might go to rallies for entertainment. Celebrities as guests are likely to attract a large crowd to the rallies. While waiting for the other participants, they even provide some preliminary entertainment. So much singing and dancing, as well as comedic acts, to break up the monotony. And what was intended to be the highlight, the introduction of governance platforms, would be pushed to the background or even ignored.

We constantly maintain that quality is preferable to quantity. Others also believe that quantity equals popularity, as evidenced by polls. According to polls, the two most popular presidential contenders are those whose rallies are well-attended. As a result, those at the bottom of the surveys would settle for group meetings, press conferences, and television appearances because large audiences are difficult to come by. Elections are, and always have been, popularity contests. No matter how hard we try to persuade people based on valid criteria such as integrity, honesty, commitment, and platform clarity, some will still vote for the candidate who is most popular among the candidates, even if it means justifying the idea that voting for a candidate who is not a sure winner is a pointless exercise.

However, each vote conveys the values, ideals, and aspirations of the voter for the candidate who will carry them out. This is the person whose sole purpose is to make it happen. However, it appears that some of us no longer believe in such idealistic thinking, as nothing has ever materialized after the election. It's as if hoping and believing for nothing. We can't say we blame them. Rather, it is up to us to provide whatever inspiration we have left and to keep hoping for the best.

Finally, attending rallies demonstrates support for a certain candidate. But, once and for all, the quality of discussion, track record, and sincerity of purpose are more important factors in determining who we vote for. Because some people aren't accustomed to working in an environment where excellence is demanded, please let us serve as a barometer of quality.