The answer is YES!

People vote for a candidate for all of these reasons and for many more, or so they will tell you. Most people donÍt really know why they vote for one candidate over another but when you get to the bottom of the question, the real answer is that people vote for the candidate they believe will make life a little better for them.

It is a fact that most voters can not tell you WHY they think their candidate will make life better for them because most voters do not analyze their thoughts about candidates. They like this candidate or that candidate and they will tell you many reasons why he should be elected. Few of them will tell you outright that "I am going to vote for Boris because Boris is going to make things better for me."

Most people donÍt really know how Boris is going to make life better for them but they develop a "sense" from his talks or from his reputation or from his publicity that appeals to them more than his competitor.

Now letÍs presume that I am correct in the above assumptions. Since vast amounts of research say that this is not an assumption but proven fact, (at least in American elections), then my only assumption here is that people are pretty much the same all over the world when it comes to free elections. If IÍm correct in the premise that "People vote for the candidate they believe will make life a little better for them", then what strategy does this suggest a candidate should take in winning the votes?

LetÍs digress a little before we talk about campaign strategy. It is important to first consider the meaning of the phrase "People vote for the candidate they believe will make life a little better for them". How can life be made better for a national population?

Almost universally, the answer is to increase the standard of living for the population but what does this really mean. How does one increase the standard of living?

Generally it means providing more goods and services for the population. The standard of living goes up when the per capita consumption of goods and services increases. People are generally better off, feel better about life and have a more positive outlook when the available goods and services increase and they are in a position to participate in the consumption of those goods and services.

The term "goods" can mean anything from shoes to automobiles, from beans to caviar, from homespun jackets to Russian sable. These are the consumables that a population uses to make life what it is in a given nation at a given point in time. Standard of living is partially based on the quantity of goods available to each of us but it is also based on the quality of those goods.

Services are those functions that other people do for us. They include such things as medical care, automobile repair, teaching our children, cleaning of public buildings and streets, and disposing of our garbage. Many of these things we once did for ourselves, but as society evolved, people became specialized and thus became more dependent on others to do these things for us.

The quality of goods and service available is also a measure of the standard of living. In advanced nations with a high standard of living, one usually finds the best quality of goods and services to be available. Medical care is usually one of the best measures of quality in a nation, but there are others such as education level, the amount of discretionary time the people have for sport, recreation and family. In such countries, the general population is little concerned with survival for the next week because they have resources saved to take them through the next year or more. In poor nations with a low standard of living, medical care is often poor, people spend a lot of time just scratching out a living, food choices are limited and seasonal, clothing and housing are either inadequate or sparse and there is a national apathy. People donÍt expect things to get better, they simply hope to get from one day to the next, because survival occupies much of their thought and their effort.

The next question that begs for an answer is "Why do some countries have a better standard of living than other countries?" It is too easy to answer the question by saying they have more and better goods and services, yet this is exactly the reason why the standard of living is better. A more important question that might be asked is "Why do some countries have more and better goods and services than another country?"

Again the answer is not too difficult. The countries with more goods and services and higher quality are those countries where the people have more money to spend. But maybe that answer is too simple. Maybe it is because in those countries, there is more "purchasing power". Are these not the same things? Yes, if the money has real value and is recognized by the international markets. For the purpose of our discussion, let us assume that the nationÍs money has value and can indeed purchase goods and services not only at home but also from other nations. We have thus decided that:

1. People elect politicians they believe will make life better for them,
2. A better life is the same as a higher standard of living for most people,
3. A higher standard of living is obtained by having and affording more and better goods and services,
4. It takes money to obtain more and better goods and services

Simply stated, it follows that people who have more money will spend that money to buy more and better goods and services. By having more and better goods and services, the standard of living increases and the quality of life is better and people are more satisfied with their life. They will vote to elect the candidate they believe can make this happen.

Now that we have reached this point, it is easy to say, "any fool can see such an obvious line of reasoning", but look around you. How many fools do you know who do not understand this line of reasoning? Better yet, look at the politicians you have elected and then tell me that the average voter understands this obvious line of reasoning.

I challenge your intellect so that you will continue reading not to anger you. I want you to think about the important task we give to voters when those voters really canÍt express to you WHY they vote for a particular candidate. But let us return once more to our line of reasoning.

How does one provide more money to a nationÍs population so that the population can buy more goods and services and thus enjoy a higher standard of living? There are multiple components to this answer. We can consider:

1. Creating more jobs at home,
2. Creating higher paying jobs at home,
3. Creating and exporting technology in return for money,
4. Allowing the workers to keep more of the money they earn to spend on their families rather than on taxes,
5. Sending a high percentage of your population abroad to work and send the money home.

Ukraine now sends nearly 25% of its workforce abroad to work. The sole purpose of this export of labor is because the workers have no jobs at home and no prospect to earn money to buy the necessities of life, much less the goods and services that increase the standard of living. Would it not be better to create these jobs at home?

In my previous article, I have partially discussed the actions that Ukraine government can take to create jobs in Ukraine and to give the people more money with which to improve their standard of living. I do not want my Ukrainian readers to think that I oversimplify the situation or that I can offer all of the answers to a very complicated question. Ukraine is in difficult times and much of her talent is focused on survival with little left over to put into solving her problems, but solve them they must. I hope only to stimulate some thinking for it has been said that one can see the forest much better from a distance. When one is in the forest, he can see only the trees.

The politician that can show the people how he will create jobs in Ukraine, lower taxes, keep the Ukrainian sons and fathers at home, provide better medical care for the sick and elderly, provide better food, clothing and shelter for the population, give the worker a little more time to spend with his family and in sport and leisure, and give the voter hope that tomorrow will be better than today will capture the vote and will be elected to office.

The politician once in office that can show the people that he has been working during his elected term to fulfill these promises to the voters rather than enriching himself will get re-elected. If he can not prove that he has been working to better life for the people, then he should be cast aside and another given the chance.

The real question in any election is: "Which candidate will make life a little better for me?" The Ukrainian voters must be careful how they answer this question. If you think it makes no difference which politician wins the election, then Ukraine deserves the politicians you get. Freedom to elect ones government carries a heavy responsibility to make sure one does the best job he can. We can make a mistake once when we elect a bad politician and we can blame it on the politician. All electorates make that mistake from time to time. However, if we re-elect a bad politician, then it is our own fault and we deserve the poor government we get. Don't let Ukraine's children down. Do your job today. Elect politicians that will work for the people who elected them and not for themselves. Do this so the children will have a better future on the morrow.

I will be happy to answer any questions or continue this topic as a discussion for any who wish to do so. Simply return to the Index page and follow the link to the discussion forums. If you have not already joined the discussion forum, you will need to register at the top of the first page before you will be granted access. The discussion is under the general topic of "politics"

H. Greystone

Index Page

Discussion forum