Talking Something. . .

Forgive me this silliness, but why are we voting in an election where one of the candidates is asserting at the start that the only way he can lose is if the election is rigged?

Why would anyone participate in such a process? It is absurd. If the election is rigged, then I am not voting. I will not cast a vote unless I hear both candidates assert that the election is not rigged, that all votes will be counted and that they will accept the results of the election.

If either candidate is not able to commit to that, then I am not participating. I try to avoid things that are inherently corrupt.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Imagine Usain Bolt claiming such in the last Summer Olympics. “If I do not win the gold, you know it was rigged.” And in his case it would have probably been true.

Regardless, Bolt would have been laughed off the judge’s stand if he showed up before the race requesting his gold. Even though the only way he could lose was by the race being rigged. He still had to do the race. Imagine they had skipped the race and simply had given him the gold?

Imagine Tiger Woods, who was just as high and sadly did come down, saying that the only way he could lose is for the game to be rigged.

Let us move on into the courts. A man who is infamous in a territory or region, cannot be tried in that territory. That is why you often enough see a “change of venue”. Again, he could not be found guilty without a fair trial. It begins with the man’s defense attorney asserting that claim.

Now imagine a US President commenting on such a trial. That could be grounds for appeal as the jury may have heard the President’s comments and took them to heart. Again his speaking out influencing, biasing, the jury pool and perhaps jury.

In the world of finance two situations come to mind. Insider trading, where one does not talk shit but rather uses or shares information that they are legally and ethically prohibited from bringing to the market. Here, one’s position leads not to bias or as in the case of sports better ticket sales but improper and simply illegal stock transactions.

The second variation found in the market is the classic “pump and dump”. This is truly talking shit. Typically, it is talking shit about shit, and making it look like it is not shit or perhaps hot shit. Enough. Basically it is inflating or manipulating the price of a stock and then before the manipulation is discovered, sell your shares, taking advantage of the inflated price you have just manipulated. The challenge here is to manipulate the price but not to be caught doing so. It is obviously illegal and becomes a challenge if you come to be known for such.

Going back to sporting events, participants talking about outcomes are seen in two lights. Both can be described as talking shit. Boxing is famous for such. Muhammad Ali was the best at such. Muhammad Ali, however, never talked of losing. To lose was inconceivable for Ali. I am speculating there, but he I am quite sure never discounted a fight.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I pray my silliness, my speculations above, have not brought anyone to the decision of not voting. Voting is the one game that must be played, even if rigged.

Typically, however, if you play something, regardless of what the game or activity is that you are engaging in, you do not begin by announcing that the game is rigged. The one exception, which I listed above, is the man who cannot get a fair trial in the current locale. And that has a remedy, a work-around is available.

To not walk away, to engage a rigged game is to poison or pollute that game or activity. You corrupt it, and no one typically wants to be associated with such. You kill it.

Voting, however, has no work around. If anything, the possibility of it being rigged should motivate one to vote that much more. The possibility of one’s election being rigged should propel one to the polls. Perhaps, the only way to correct such possibilities, such threats, is to overwhelm them.

This was originally a series of posts on Facebook.