American elections are a superficial industry

The editorial published on Sunday, Aug. 25, asked, “Is America ready for a female president?”

The reasons why there are not more women in positions of political power in the U.S. are varied. The election season is a slow slog, not merely the catching up that women candidates must do. Even the most tenacious will get discouraged, especially today when social media brings to politically ambitious women the acrimony of misogyny and the threat of political violence.

American elections are a showy and superficial industry, with policies taking a backseat to pure entertainment and emotional appeals for money. What sane woman or man would want to run for president? You have to prostrate to so many groups, especially to the donor class, to win.

If you choose to run for public office, you will be asked intrusive questions about your personal life. Many stifling requirements would gum up the presidential race for many who dare to jump in the ring. You must be brawny while announcing your allegiance to the most lethal fighting force in the world to come out victorious, and even then, you may not make it. You dare not be in favor of criminal justice reform, because that could be misrepresented as you being soft on crime by your opponents. The reticent members of your family must be prepared to be chased and pinned down for interviews and if they refuse, dirt could be dug up on them anyway. So, you cannot be fainthearted.

All these requirements are especially hard on women with kids, beginners in politics and those with an independent streak who are not immersed fully in every nuance of Americana. Money is a big factor in whether you’ll make it through a race. If you cannot attract big donors to your campaign, you must spend an enormous amount of time knocking on doors to get people to know you and donate to your campaign. If you choose to use public money for your campaign and your opponent has money from big donors to spend, you could find yourself struggling to stay above the campaign waters.

American elections are very difficult for men as well as women, but particularly harsh on the latter and that is why we don’t see many women leaders in politics. If we shorten the political season, take big money out of politics, mandate public monies for all campaigns, put aside the ludicrous invasion of candidates’ personal lives and instead concentrate on their policies and how they would implement those policies, I suspect more female candidates will be willing to take the risk of being in politics.

— Usha Nellore, Bel Air

Unfair question

Your editorial was deeply unfair to voters (Is America ready for a female president?, Aug. 25).

You wrote, “Most Americans claim they are ready for a female president,” and in essence challenged voters to prove they’re not closeted sexists by electing Kamala Harris.

Please give voters more credit. A woman will be elected president someday. For the sake of our country, let it be based on merit and merit alone.

— Cindy Mumby, Bel Air

Time for a woman to lead

Is America ready for a female president?

She will have to be.

— Robert Kass, Owings Mills

It’s the wrong question

Is America ready for a female president? I used to wonder about this, too.

But now I wonder why this is still a question. Why isn’t the question, “Is America ready for a twice-impeached, 34-count indicted felon and convicted rapist president?”

How can anyone think a female president would be worse than that? Anyone who can insults all women.

— Linda Snyder, Glen Arm

Question shows poor logic

Can anyone explain the logic in the Aug. 25 editorial “Is America ready for a female president?”

The editorial states that “Hillary Clinton, in 2016, won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote to Trump.” So, the majority of voters chose Clinton over Trump, but Trump was awarded the presidency because of an antiquated electoral voting system. Somehow, based on opinion surveys and down-ballot election results, the editorial concludes that “the glass ceiling remains firmly in place.”

Really?

Opinion surveys outweigh actual voting results? Based on this logic, elections are no longer necessary. Apparently, a survey of a tiny segment of a population has a greater validity than a total survey of the population itself. I suggest that the editor take a refresher course in Statistics 101.

— Richard Ulrich, Glen Arm