Presidential candidates should never develop an attitude that they are shoo-ins. Candidates, preparing to run for president of one of the greatest countries in the world, should muster up enough courage to listen to the uncertainties of the people that they will be governing; even if it means straddling through intense communication. Ongoing critical dialogue with their future constituents should not just take place before the election; followed by disappearance until the next voting season, once voting has taken place; it should be followed by action.
Generally, when someone is voted into office, he or she immediately thinks about what they need to do in order to get re-elected. Two term limits can have adverse effects, which can act as a deterrence for doing nothing. Playing the balancing act can result in falling off the tight rope on the wrong side. Effective governance is an ongoing process, especially in a true democratic society. On the other hand, democracy of the people, for the people and by the people won’t work without the people. There has to be a reciprocal relationship.
False promises should not be made during campaign season, forgotten after the campaign melee has taken place. There is nothing more disheartening than having a politician lie. Candidates should practice honesty as a value and admit when they have made mistakes. Candidates that hang onto the lesser of two evils argument as a method to receive votes; therefore, taking votes for granted might be in for a big surprise. Americans have been boondoggled for too long regarding this argument. In the case of the Democrats, voters realize that Trump keeps digging himself into a deeper hole; therefore, increasing the chances for amassing disgruntled voters and guiding them to what is seemingly the only alternative. What they often forget is that there are other choices for voters.
Critical thinking Americans realize that the Electoral College is farcical. Many would argue that “Rigged elections” are fairly normal, seemingly buttressed by the naked eye until one digs deeper. Pollsters are notorious for predicting winners long before people vote. They push the agenda like the magic of tricksters, spreading statistics onto voters that influences how they vote. In presidential elections where Electoral College votes are allocated primarily in a winner-take-all fashion and in which outcomes are determined by competitive swing states, most Americans’ electoral votes in a particular election are already predetermined before anyone even heads to the polls. Most states have a “winner-take-all” system that awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate. There are two states, Maine and Nebraska that have a variation of “proportional representation.” Proportional representation is an electoral system designed to represent in a legislative body each political group or party in proportion to its actual voting strength in the electorate.” It truly represents the diverse perspectives of the voters. Statesman John Adams wrote in a letter in 1780: “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”
Hilary Clinton’s recent visit to a small tie-making business in Denver, Colorado layered with criticism for Donald Trump whose ties are made in China shouldn’t be quite enough to convince voters in this state that she is the person for the presidential job. The old adage that supporters of the Democratic Party and anti-Trumpsters only have one voting alternative, “voting for the lesser of two evils” is flawed. In the final analysis, constantly choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. It is still voting for your own enslavement and a false choice.
In this case, Americans vote for the lesser of the two evils implies that voters should not vote for Donald Trump because of his complete lack of experience, decorum and honesty; but should vote for Hillary Clinton’s even though they believe that her truthfulness is questionable and complicity with corruptness exists. The mishaps she has created don’t appeal to voters but because she is the lesser of two evils, pull the lever in her favor.
Ultimately, the lesser-of-two-evils voter theory rests on a backwards principle — that voters should vote against their least-favorite candidate rather than voting for their favorite one. It is not the voter’s job to win the election for a political party or candidate. Voters should work towards creating a more representative democracy. Candidates and political parties must earn the support of voters by choosing positions that will convince them that traveling to a polling location has value. They should also follow through with what is generally political rhetoric with strong political stances that may alienate some of their voters, causing a fear about reelection. One outstanding term seems to be better than two less than mediocre ones.
Don’t vote for the lesser of two evils, vote for what is right.
Ramón Del Castillo, Ph.D. is an Independent Journalist. ©8-14-2016 Ramón Del Castillo.