There is a hotly contested senate race with Kay Hagan and Tom Tillis trying to win. voting for one of them is like deciding to shoot yourself in the head or in the mouth: the results are still suicide. If each candidate is as evil as the other one says, then we need neither. I'm not voting for Tom Tillis because Kay Hagan supports the President anymore than I would vote of Kay Hagan because Tom Tillis sides with big business over the individual. To me that indicates but are wrong.
I wish we had a third option, and not just a candidate from a third party, but a choice to vote against a candidate. Say, if there are 100 people voting and 7 vote for the third party then one of the two main candidates will win, even if half the voters don't vote because they like neither candidate.
But what if those fifty who voted didn't like either candidate either but just felt compelled to pick the lesser of two evils. Well, that's like only putting 4 bullets in a six shooter and only pulling the trigger 3 times: you are still dead.
It would make sense to put an against option on the ballet. That way you can vote for one, or vote for the other or vote against both. That option gives power to people who are feed up with no real voice in the community. Up till now the only choice you have is to vote for one or the other or not vote and let someone choose for you. With the against option then if neither candidate is acceptable
the there is a chance enough against votes will force the parties to pick more acceptable candidates.
But for now we are stuck with the old system. Vote but for for the third party: no one is saying anything bad a out them.
No comments:
Post a Comment