It was 2:00 a.m. and I had the munchies. I tried to fight it off because I had already made a late night Dunkin’s run in preparation for my expected late-night hunger. I was with a couple of friends and we all knew that we couldn’t hold up the fight any longer. Nothing, not even YouTube or Facebook, could distract me from the hunger that had engulfed me. How could I enjoy my night if I was this hungry? I knew that I needed some grub, and I could tell my friends were reaching the same conclusion.

We got in the car and began to drive down Washington Street. The ride seemed to go on forever as we cruised down the dark, silent streets of Middletown. Just as I began to lose hope, I saw the most extraordinary sight. There, on the horizon, stood the glorious golden arches of victory. We had reached McDonalds.

My friend warned that sometimes the arches weren’t as glorious as they seemed. Many times, the keepers of the treasure held inside would shoo off late night travelers, claiming a “computer malfunction”. With the worst in mind, we approached the window and began to formulate our orders.

I first considered a Big Mac. Such an epic sandwich would certainly curve my cravings. However, what if it didn’t? I realized that nearly $4 for a sandwich which may or may not fill me was quite the risk, so I began to reconsider. If I was going to spend $4, I was going to be full. So I made the most logical choice: I bought three double cheeseburgers and a sweet tea. I knew that I’d much rather eat a Big Mac than a double cheeseburger. But I’d much rather eat three double cheeseburgers than one Big Mac. It was simple quality versus quantity, and for the most part, quantity always wins.

But in retrospect, quantity shouldn’t always win. If I always ate by this philosophy, I’d surely be morbidly obese by now. But I’m not the only one getting fat on quantity. Politicians often look to bulk up their campaign with low quality votes, because our president isn’t elected based on the quality of the votes he receives, but on the quantity.

Isn’t everyone’s opinion of equal worth? While this may be a loaded question, the answer is no. No, not all opinions are equal. In order for an opinion to be of worth, it must be supported with reasons based in fact. An opinion must be able to be defended in an intelligible manner. When these requirements aren’t met, the opinion is of little worth. Sadly, many people hold these low- quality opinions, and they therefore come in high quantity. These people form these opinions based on propaganda, hearsay, and instincts. They don’t take the time to educate themselves on the reality of the situation. And apparently, these are the types of opinions going around this election.

The Electoral College should technically be able to buffer the quantity votes, but politics have forbid the Electoral College from doing so. Unpledged electors, or those in the College who have not already pledged to vote for a certain candidate, are nearly nonexistent in the current day; and faithless electors (those who vote for a candidate other than the one they pledged to vote to) are punishable by law. While the electors in the College are supposed to be selected based upon their ability to make educated and quality votes, they are instead chosen because they are highly loyal to their given party and very unlikely to cast a faithless vote.

In recent elections, the media and different political parties have heavily pushed the importance of voting, and candidates are targeting new voters. Here, a large amount of quantity votes can be found. For the most part, however, new voters lack the experience and education on issues to make a serious decision about who they believe should be the country’s president. What makes an 18-year-old student think that they know enough about economics, international relations, healthcare and alternative fuel to make an educated decision? I’ve heard many students claim that “obviously” Obama’s healthcare system would work out much better than McCain’s. Really? Because if it really was that much better, and it was that obvious to a college student, do you think McCain would even propose his? No. Both of the plans are plausible, logical plans to improve the country’s healthcare. McCain didn’t just make it up; he had help from people whom are highly respected in the fields of global health and economics. It’s hard for me to believe that a 19-year-old student studying literature has a grip on the vast array of factors that have gone into the formulation of the Republican program. It is just illogical that somehow you, a college student, are so brilliant that you can make a stern judgment with regards to the legitimacy of either plan.

Even worse, people have been making farfetched claims that don’t even have the slightest basis in fact. One student told me that McCain’s plan to have the government to buy up subprime mortgages and revalue them according the housing market was a scam. A scam? The government is going to give the banks money for mortgages that at this point are extremely unlikely to be paid back. This is good, because if the banks don’t get back the money that they lend out, they will run out of money. The plan would then require the government to adjust these loans based on the current housing market which, if you’ve researched the issue, you’d know is doing pretty poorly in most parts of the United States. That means people will be paying LESS for their mortgages, allowing them to actually pay their bills. The government will likely break even or lose a small portion of money in the long run. However, this program will protect the banks from the subprime mortgages they have lent and, by extension, protect the economy from another crisis. How is this a scam? The government is not going to raise the cost of your mortgage. If they did, people would not pay them back, and the government would lose more money. Why would they want that?

Sadly, if your candidate is a good public speaker, uses key words like “change” and is in the party which dominates most college campuses to begin with, he never really needs to explain how he wants to actually institute his goals, or how he plans to counteract all the additional spending he has proposed. Unlike his opponent, his idealist views will never be questioned. Maybe people should reconsider if they even should vote in the first place, unless they’re content with the Democratic campaign getting fat off their dollar-menu votes.