Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

POLITICS: Don’t waste vote on ‘lesser of two evils’

Letter by James S. Peet, Enumclaw on April 3, 2012 at 12:03 pm with 21 Comments »
April 3, 2012 12:35 pm

As the Republican Party draws closer to nominating a presidential candidate, Americans will, for the most part, sit back and allow the two major parties to decide the fate of the country. A common refrain from many citizens is that “my vote doesn’t count.” Well, we all know this isn’t true; look at the 2004 gubernatorial race, in which Chris Gregoire barely won (after a third recount) by 129 votes.

Those dissatisfied with the direction of our country and the current presidential field should perhaps consider a two-term former governor who advocates fiscal responsibility along with social tolerance: Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson of New Mexico. Of all the candidates running, he’s the only one re-elected to his governorship (by a majority of voters), the only one who is still liked (according to a Public Policy poll) and the only one who has kept his campaign promises.

Forty percent of voters identify themselves as independent, so they now have the opportunity to change history by voting their conscience rather than voting for “the lesser of two evils.”

Be a fully informed voter. Check out Johnson’s platform at www.garyjohson2012.com. Wouldn’t it be nice to vote for somebody for once?

Leave a comment Comments → 21
  1. You are correct to vote for the person in whom you have the most confidence. The likelihood that your third party candidate will come in higher than third place is astronomical. So, in reality, we are left with only two choices, each evil in the eyes of their opposition.

  2. On social issues, Libertarians, at least as Johnson’s issue platform delineates them, espouse “Freedom and justice for all” much more than Republicans and even more than most Democrats.

    However, on fiscal issues and governance, the dog-eat-dog, rich-eat-the-world, and cut off the safety net to the poor, disabled and elderly approach really turns me off.

  3. TSkidmore says:

    But they don’t believe in government…why elect someone who does not believe in what they were elected to do??? Libertarians have some good ideas…end the military empire…stop enforcing laws on victimless crime…take corporation off welfare…but the basics of government theory are wrong and thousands of years of human history show they will not work…just read a little history.

  4. alindasue says:

    While I’m not sold on the current Libertarian candidate (I have voted for a Libertarian candidate before), Mr. Peet does have a point about throwing your votes away. Yes, I’ve heard people use Bandito’s reasoning about the chances a third candidate has of winning, but is it any less a waste of your vote if you vote for someone besides who you’d actually want to win?

    If everyone voted for who he or she thinks is the best candidate rather than who “is likely to win”, then it would be just as possible for a third party candidate to win. Just ask the Torries and the Whigs.

    Just remember that no HONEST vote is “wasted”.

  5. aislander says:

    There are a number of cliches about politics, including the definition of its being the art of the possible. Just because something has become a cliche does not mean it is untrue, however.

    Grow up.

  6. sandblower says:

    The “lesser of two evils” is a copout for people who cannot think or who do not have the education and knowledge to make an informed decision to vote for our current President, Obama.
    Mr. Romney, I am sure, is a very nice guy as long as he in not in control of anything having to do with people. His healthcare record in Massachusetts is something of an aberration that we like.

  7. penumbrage says:

    Reminds me of the bumper sticker that says “That other guy who isn’t Obama in 2012.”
    If you don’t vote your conscience (and show the country what the citizens really believe) aren’t you just a hypocrite when you complain about politicians making blind party votes and scratch-my-back-and-I’ll-scratch-yours votes?
    I think if you research a little further you’ll find Libertarians aren’t opposed to (insert your favorite issue), they simply favor resolving those issues at a state level (as per the constitution) so that an actual majority of the people can be satisfied with the laws they live under and the government programs they pay taxes for as opposed to the (seemingly unstoppable) Federal one-size-fits-some system that guarantees a dissatisfied majority.

  8. Frankenchrist says:

    The Republican Party has declared Total War on Women.

    Romney likes to fires people, destroy companies, and move the jobs to China.

    The choice is clear.

  9. bobcat1a says:

    “The lesser of two evils” philosophy is that of a glass-half-empty pessimist. The better of two less-than-perfect (the only kind there are) human beings is the reality. Too many Americans are so spoiled that anything less than “everything I want” is unacceptable; that’s a juvenile viewpoint. An adult knows that life is frequently about choices between less-than-perfect alternatives and deals with it; a child kicks and screams and whines and blames everyone in sight.
    Be an adult.

  10. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Franknos- you juvenile posts do not merit a response, but hear you go.

    Mitt, a businessman, proven success, moderate

    BHO, proven failure, divides America, hates anyone that isn’t a ‘vote’.

    Your war on women is a proven lie. Grow up. Sorry your tent was removed from the park

  11. Grow up.

    you juvenile posts do not merit a response, but hear you go.

    Ah yes….the “adults” mantel that “conservatives” like to cloak themselves in (you would think the flag, bible and apple pie would be enough).

    The maturity required to taunt someone about being immature is just so bewildering. (I’m guessing ct7 doesn’t equate adulthood with understanding which homophone is appropriate)

    We are governed by our consent. When we vote for the least evil because that is what “adults” do then we have provided consent to be governed by an evil. Aren’t we all happy to continue as “adults”?

  12. c7, you complain about juvenile posts when you are the most guilty of them.

    As for mittens, everyone knows he will take us back to the failed bush years and the far right extremism, like the Ryan plan, which as we all know, by history, will be a disaster.

    why would a thinking person want to go back to something we KNOW doesn’t work?

  13. franken…you need professional help. Your manic commentary is very sad

    Voting for a third party candidate is throwing your vote away, so if that’s what you want to do so you can boast about voting your conscience, have at it. I did that the first time I was permitted to vote and thought I was quite superior for having done so.

    Then I actually DID grow up and realized that my feelings (don’t tell Oprah!) are a poor guide for deciding how to vote. I vote for whichever of the two primary candidates will lead our country in the direction I think it should go.

    Thus, I could never, with good consicence vote for Barack Obama and I can, with a clear and easy consicence vote for the candidate who will take control of this ship and do what he can to set it on a better course.

  14. “I vote for whichever of the two primary candidates will lead our country in the direction I think it should go.”

    As long as they an R next to their name.

  15. I vote for whichever of the two primary candidates will lead our country in the direction I think it should go.

    ‘And how has that worked out for ya?

  16. Sadly, it didn’t work out well at all in 2008. I’m hoping for improvement,though. klueless’ assumption that I only vote for those with an R next to their name is, of course, false but I would not expect him to appreciate the mind of an independent thinker.

  17. So you were happy with the net results of 2000/2004? Not too many conservatives who say that today.

  18. aislander says:

    THAT was a breathtaking oversimplification, beerBoy. I’m MUCH happier with those results than with 2008.

    Perfect in every way? No, but WAY better in a lot of ways.

    These are different times and we are speeding toward a Greek cliff. We need someone to put the brakes on and President Obama and the Democrats show no willingness to do so.

    An adult who cares about the country will vote for the most conservative candidate who can win…

  19. aislander says:

    …in every contest.

  20. alindasue says:

    sozo said, “Voting for a third party candidate is throwing your vote away…”

    If you only vote for a candidate because you think he’ll win, rather than the candidate you really want in office, THEN you have thrown your vote away. If “third party” candidates never had a chance of winning, we’d all still be choosing between the Torry and the Whig candidates right now – but we’re not.

  21. aislander says:

    alindasue: A third party has NEVER won a national election (or a majority in Congress) in the United States.

    Parties have collapsed (as did the Whigs over the issue of abolition) and been replaced by a new second party.

    But three parties in competition with each other? No.

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0