Sunday, September 25, 2016

You Only Have Two Choices?

The Times- Standard reports on Clinton's Vice Presidential Tim Kaine telling us we'd best keep our presidential choices limited to the major party candidates. That should come as no surprise. I'll agree with Kaine that we might not have suffered through the biggest foreign relations gaffe in perhaps our lifetimes- the invasion of Iraq- had Al Gore won, but there's no way to say that for sure. 

Then, over at the Sacramento Bee, Dan Walters looks at our U.S. Senate race,  making it seem as if the only two candidates in that race are Kamala Harris and Loretta Sanchez. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that he makes no mention of Libertarian Party candidate Gail Lightfoot who is also in that race. I had to point out in the comments to that story that, with so- called independents being the fast growing voter segment in the state, a third party candidate might be able to shake that race up a little. But, no, I"m sure Dan likes the horse race aspect of a two party race.

Hey, I'm used to it, having been pretty much a third party voter since '92. It is frustrating being ignored and always losing but that goes with the territory. What I'm curious about is everyone else. Do all of you like being told your choices are whoever the powers that be say they are? If there were actually only two choices in this race, I'd likely not vote at all as I've done before.

Maybe it's just my nature, but that sort of attitude would just piss me off. I don't like being told what to do or having my options limited. I realize most others aren't that way but if someone told me I had to vote for either Clinton or Trump and that was it, it woud piss me off enough I'd take the third choice. And, as I've written here and elsewhere, this is the perfect time to vote third party with two horrific candidates being forced upon you.

10 Comments:

At 8:31 AM, Blogger Carol Ann Conners said...

Hi, Fred, both of the California Senate contenders are Democrats. There are new rules in our state that the top two winners of the Primary square off in the November election.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-senate-primary-election-20160607-snap-story,amp.html

 
At 8:42 AM, Blogger Fred Mangels said...

Yep. Then you'd think media would be even more open to third choices.

 
At 9:04 AM, Blogger Carol Ann Conners said...

I am not sure you understand. We had the 3rd party choices in the Primary. It has nothing to do with the media.

 
At 9:16 AM, Blogger Fred Mangels said...

I voted against the blanket primary and still think we should have more than two (or in this case one) choice in the general election.

 
At 9:27 AM, Blogger Carol Ann Conners said...

Well, you can always write-in your candidate.
The reasoning behind this is so the winner has the majority vote rather than a plurality vote.

 
At 11:19 AM, Blogger Fred Mangels said...

I don't have a problem with someone winning by a plurality. As I see it, that can be a defense against a government that leans too strong to the left or right since a candidate can win despite his district leaning heavily one way or the other. Then we have people in government with different view points rather than all lockstep with a left or right agenda.

 
At 12:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, we can say Gore won for sure, per the official vote tally that came after the Supreme Court anointed Bush. It's a matter of public record, not opinion.

 
At 12:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can't vote for someone who supports TPP and opposes net neutrality. So Johnson is out for me. I can't vote for Orange Hitler or Pant Suit Nixon either.

 
At 1:26 PM, Blogger Fred Mangels said...

"we can say Gore won for sure..."

I wasn't referring to election results. I was referring to whether Algore would have attacked Iraq. I tend to think he wouldn't have as it would ahve been sheer folly, even for Gore.

Then again, I tend to think Obama isn't exactly into war, either, but he's gone along with the War Party quite well. As I've wrote here before, the pressure on presidents to attack other countries must be enormous and difficult for all of them to resist.

 
At 2:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It really doesn't matter because, according to more than a few, whoever wins these elections it is God's will. Unless it's "Pant's Suit Nixon"(?) then it's Lucifer's will.

Either way we're all in the hands of the long running heavenly dispute for supremacy.

When I walk into the voting booth I'll let God guide my hand on the lever, or punch pin, whatever. Or it might be the Devil deftly driving my digits. I'm not exactly sure, but I really wish there was room in the heavens for a third alternative.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home