What the hell is going on in the political world nowadays? It’s not enough that we have a liar continuing to lie about the lies she was called out on, and an orange-and-blond id spouting off in ways that make us question his mental state, competing for the Presidency. It’s not enough that we have a president who just paid a giant ransom to a terrorist state insisting, bald-faced, that it was just “unfortunate timing” and not actually a ransom? It’s not enough that the mainstream media’s lying ways have reduced the public’s [trust][1 to only 6%. It’s not enough that two in three Americans think the country is on the wrong track, or that seven in eight Americans disapprove of the job Congress is doing. It’s not enough that our current and future Presidents continue to step in pile after pile of excrement.
People still reflexively defend them.
WHY?!?!
People regurgitate excuses they’ve been handed by the media they distrust rather than speak the obvious truths.
WHY?!?!
People defend “their” side of the fence by proclaiming that the “other” side is worse.
WHY!?!?
People go silent when “their” favored pols or candidates say obviously wrong things.
WHY!?!?
People close their eyes to obvious, blatant, and damning improprieties committed by “their” favored pols.
WHY!?!?
Then there are the major party presidential candidates themselves. Each of them has been handed a stack of aces on a silver platter by the other. Each of them continues to receive gifts from the other side. Neither one can manage to lever any of those gifts without some new unforced error or revelation from their side that kills their opportunities.
Obama defenders, Clinton defenders, Trump defenders – you should all be ashamed of yourselves. Every one of them has lied to you, done indefensible things, broken your trust and betrayed your hope. Still, you defend them, and in the case of Clump, still plan to vote for them.
WHY!?!?
Do you really think that your support will be rewarded somehow? That the corrupt liar or the raging id will somehow become more upright, forthright, honest and presidential upon taking the oath of office? That your overt acceptance of all that’s wrong with them will convince them to behave better? That one of them will be somehow better than the other? Or, that because one of them will somehow be worse than the other, that voting for the “lesser evil” is the right thing to do?
None of them deserve your loyalty. Loyalty is a gag foisted by higher-ups on those beneath them, a one-way and emotionally-charged ploy used to keep the rank-and-file from acting in their best interests. Politicians and power-brokers rely on our tribal tendencies to keep themselves and “their” team in power. They make you think that “their” team is “your” team, when in fact you’ll be lucky if they merely do nothing “for” you. Unless you’re actually one of “them,” i.e. an insider, a crony, a well-connected individual who can provide something of substance in return for the largesse they bestow, you’re just one of the millions of sheep they convince not to stray from the flock because the wilderness is scary.
Yes, I’m suggesting you vote third-party this Presidential election. Or, don’t vote at all if you don’t like any of the candidates. Withhold that which they insist you have to give them in order to save you from the slavering hordes and pestilential ruin the “other” side will bring down upon you. Stand up and be counted among those who will demand principle by acting on principle. Be part of the recovery, not a contributor to the decline.
Loading ...
A third-party vote is certainly appropriate if neither major party nominee is acceptable to the voter. The flip side is that if the voter waits for a nominee that they agree with 100%, they will be waiting a very long time, and third-party nominees are not necessarily better fits either.
Because of the electoral college’s largely winner-take-all setup, it’s provable that you can have at most two major parties. If a voter chooses to vote for a third-party nominee instead of one of the two major-party nominees, then it empowers the *other* major party nominee rather than truly expressing the preferences of the voter. Parliamentary systems are different, because the voters can get representation with even very small numbers of similar votes. But parliamentary systems deal with the resulting fragmentation by needing to form coalitions after the voting is done. In the U.S., because of our unique arrangement, we form our coalitions *before* the election, and largely limit ourselves to two main candidates.
So that answers the “Why???” question quite thoroughly, I think. Even in the *absence* of misplaced loyalty, pure strategy gets people to vote for one of the two major party candidates.
The only person who agrees with you 100% is yourself. Only solipsists and narcissists insist on a 100% candidate.
I’ll have more on why you should vote third party if CLUMP does nothing for you in the weeks to come, but the short version is that this isn’t a sporting event. Your vote carries a message beyond election day.
Until then, here’s Reasons’ most recent take:
http://reason.com/archives/2016/08/10/for-republicans-a-vote-for-trump-is-a-wa