10/22/2012 09:22 am ET Updated Dec 22, 2012

Why Obama and Romney Shouldn't Treat the Election Like a Trial

Through the first two debates, I felt like I have been in a courtroom rather than an election. Both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are trying to prove who's worse for the job rather than who is better for the job.

Some find it acceptable that our candidates are acting like lawyers trying win a case, but the difference between an attorney and a politician is that once the case is over the attorney's job is done; when an election is over, the the politician's job has just begun. You can't spend your term proving why someone else shouldn't have the position; you have to continually prove why you should be in office and I believe that should begin in a campaign. Explain to me YOUR tax plans, tell me how YOU plan to create jobs, express YOUR points and leave it at that.

It should be enough to win an election. But, after all, they cater their campaigns to the people. We are culturally inclined to vote against or think negatively of one party, then to be "gung ho" about our own.

I know my thinking is overly optimistic and unrealistic based upon the world we live and people do gravitate towards negativity and fear. Cultural change is necessary where people need to be more politically active and not only every four years but every two when we have congressional and local elections. More accountability is needed and we have to demand that the upper tier economically demand it. They have more to lose economically and that is why people say, "Rich people control the government" -- because they have continued interest and in this capitalistic society they use their dollars to sway things in their favor. If the masses became as actively involved, we would tip that balance in our favor but few people understand that dynamic.