If You're Pissed Off About the Election

You're in good company.

It's Time to Do Something About it!

I'm also pissed off at being forced to choose between Hillary and Trump, and I view the system as being partial and rigged. This presidential election is an embarrassment.

If you feel passionately about having more than two parties, the time for action is now. The country is as ripe for a third-party candidate to sweep the polls as it ever was.

A Look at the Comparables*

Kind of like how Ross Perot did in 1992. Note that he started back in February of his year, though he did pull out and then re-enter. He ended up with 15% of the vote.

Well, there was also John B. Anderson, who had 13%-15% in August, and finished with 7%. He started early and worked hard throughout the season.

Even the most successful third-party presidential candidate ever, Theodore Roosevelt, who was already the incumbent (running incumbents have lost only 5 of the 14 elections in which they ran), only came in second, and still lost the election.

For reference, the guy most likely to come in third this year, Gary Johnson, has started early (announced his candidacy in January), but still only has about 10% of the vote - less than even John B. Anderson had at roughly this time during his race.

I Want a Third-Party Candidate, NOW!

Bad news: You'll have to wait.

If you feel passionately about the detrimental effects of a two-party system, talk to your representative and talk to your senator about the rules that prevent a third party candidate from being successful. Do it early, do it often. Ask your friends to do it. When the rules are fairer for third-party candidates, we can hash out which one it'll be.**

Pick the third-party candidate you think has the best chance as early as possible, and throw every ounce you have behind them. Be willing to support that candidate, even if you don't agree with them on a lot of issues, because you are passionate about having a third option.

This election is close. If you want a third-party option, figure out which candidate (Republican or Democrat) is most likely to help change the laws that prevent a third-party president, and vote for them. Don't throw your vote away on a spoiler effect candidate this time.

One More Thing

News flash: the meme you post may have value due to its humor, but you aren't changing anyone's mind with a meme, and you might offend people you're "friends" with. And you're wasting everyone else's "wall" space.

Since I mentioned that your third-party candidate isn't going to win, I should also mention that as far as I can tell, everyone has pretty much already decided who they're voting for. Whether it's "Dems-All-The-Way-Go-Hillary," "Reps-All-the-Way-Go-Trump," "Not-Trump-So-Hillary-I-Guess" or "Not-Hillary-So-Trump-I-Guess," we all pretty much know what we're doing by now.***

* Despite what spell-check says, "comparables" is a real word. It's a real estate term.

**Maybe it's my cynicism speaking, but you really don't expect to ever have a ballot with more than three names on it, do you?

***Except for those stubborn folk who just don't learn and are voting for a third-party candidate, anyway.

Some Notes

First the quick and dirty:
I'm in the very beginning of Life Of Pi and loving it. I'm surprised at the religiousness, if you will, of the book. For some reason (lack of research? Probably) I hadn't expected to find religion discussed in it, and so far have not been disappointed in what has been said. Maybe it's because after A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius, and its noted lack of anything religious, I had forgotten that some authors actually do speak of faith.

Second:
I was listening to NPR this morning and they were discussing the case involving the Supreme Court's decision in favor of a man who charged that he had not been given a fair tribunal. (In summary: Big business runs small business out of business; small business sues; jury awards small business millions; big business appeals; judge, who received millions for his election campain from big business is assigned case and refuses three times to disqualify himself from hearing the case, and finds in favor of big business and un-does the jury's decision; Small business claims he wasn't granted a fair tribunal).

This raises a couple of really basic questions for me. The first question is, Should we, the People elect our judges? Not electing judges means they'd have to be appointed, which could very easily turn (even more) into a good ol' boy system, where the status quo is maintained through the ages (or until a new official is elected), and the doors for corruption are wide open. But if we elect our judges, that allows for the selling off of seats in courts through campaign funding, which we're already seeing. Campaign fundraising has already reached $168 million since 2000. Frankly, this question is still unanswered in my mind.

How can we insulate our judicial system (assuming we're in one of the 39 states in which judges are elected) from lobbyists? It seems to me - as an over-simplification - that if you have an election, the guy with the most campaign dollars is probably going to win. Who gives to campaign funds? People who support the candidate and have a ton of money. This isn't a problem if the candidate is a politician - he'll work (presumably) to give his constituency what it wants. But judges... I mean, fair is fair, right? Regardless of how much money you contributed. But then there's loyalty. If some one gave me a few million, I'd want to keep them happy, too. If we've decided to elect judges (and I think this applies to politicians, too, though I'm not ready to think about that yet), is it fair to cap campaign spending? Or contribution amounts? I think it would be fairest to cap campaign spending at a relatively low amount across the board... but that still allows for plenty of loopholes (support from private organizations, for example). This may read pretty jumbled. It's jumbled in my head, too.

I guess no system, no matter how great, is completely safe from corruption; ours is no exception.