Election Is In The Air

As election day approaches those who have not done early voting must really start to consider not only their favorite candidate, but in this election the deeper question of voting. TV adds, your political friends, parents, facebook posts all tell you who you should and should not vote for with countless "facts" to back it up and how atrocious the other candidate is.

Some go on tangents and say they are not voting and blame it on the choices, the electoral college or just being lazy. I truly believe that it is our duty as American's to vote. Not voting regardless of the low quality of choices is wrong. We hear all the time how our ancestors died for this right. Truth is, although that is true for some, many of us are not decedents to any who were here during the revolutionary war, so for them you need another reason. That reason is all over the world, there are people in so many countries wishing they had this gift we take for granted the ability to have a say-no matter how small-in your political system, the ability to go out and vote and not worry about being shot or blown up on the way there. Admittedly, many will say one candidate or the other will take away some or all of this security if they are elected, but at least for now we can go there knowing we have this right that so many dont.

That being said when asked if your vote matters it is all based on perception. Your vote should matter to you, regardless of its low significance in the election as a whole.

Everyone should focus so much more on local elections because even though voting in the presidential election should be done, it should not have your full attention. Local politicians will have far more impact on your life in the short term, especially relative to how much more important your vote is in that election. What I say in the rest of the blog is about national elections, local elections are a different beast. At times it can come down to a few votes, where your vote really could matter. With that being said voting in essence against someone in a local election, although not preferred is understandable. Admittedly I am slightly a hypocrite because the only local elections I know well are in RI and I have never been registered there nor do I live there any longer. Where I am registered I don't live and where I live I don't know much about. My slightly lame excuse is constant moving recently, when I finally settle somewhere I will correct this.

I believe voting should not be against a candidate that you don't like it should be for one that you do. As I already said, purely voting for someone means you are not throwing away your vote regardless of who you vote for (unless you are one of the thousands of people that write in Jesus, I mean I am sure he would probably do a good job, but if we all voted for him who would our president be? - him being dead an all)

So the real question, who did I vote for? I am not one of the many that say Obama and Romney are the same. They are not. They are very different. But if you told me I had to pick between them who would be better......... I have no idea what I would pick. Each side can bash the others, but the truth is, they are both crooked, one won't release his college files (I don't think Obama was born in another country, but I do think he has filled out paperwork that says he was to get extra benefits) and one wont release his tax returns, you only refuse to release something you are embarrassed about.

I refuse to vote for a candidate just because I dont want the other one in, I did it last election and I didn't feel like I did the right thing afterwards. I really and truly believe that voting against a candidate or not voting at all is a true wasted vote.

That being said I am sure you can probably guess at this point who my vote went to. His name is Gary Johnson, I don't necessarily agree with everything he says, but I do agree with his honesty and forwardness about what he thinks. He is not someone that caters to which ever crowd that he is in front of (and that is a shot at both candidates not just Romney).

My vote will have no impact on the election, just as it would not have if I voted for either Romney or Obama. It is not in essence a vote for Obama or Romney because I believe there are just as many people who vote for Johnson that would have voted for Romney as for Obama. If everyone that didn't really want either Obama or Romney in office voted for what they really wanted, maybe it would be a close race between Jill Stein (for all those true environmental liberals) Or Stuart Alexander (for all those true socialists) - even though many call Obama a socialist, the only socialist thing he has done is Obamacare, which was modeled after Romneycare, Gary Johnson (for all those moderates out there) and Rush Limbaugh[I know he is not running] (for all those conservatives out there that want someone who always sticks to the party line, not flops from one side to the other).

As I said I dont agree with everything Johnson wants, but you will never agree entirely with one candidate. I do actually like him better than Ron Paul (a sin for any true libertarian, so I guess I am out of that party too) because he takes a more moderate view. The world is not about absolutes but interpreting a million shades of grey (and no I am not referencing 20 shades of grey). Ending the Fed is not the right first step(Paul), but auditing it is(Johnson). Scaling back spending (Johnson) rather than cutting entire departments(Paul) on BOTH military and social programs is necessary to get this country out of a fiscal hole, specifically Paul would get rid of the EPA, Johnson would simply shrink it along with the other departments. Democrats and republicans tend to just shift the same pool of money from one pot to the other. Sadly it appears that none of the three care about the environment much right now with the economy on everyone's mind. So even though it is a sad truth, the environmental topic is not a differentiating factor and if that truly is your only passion, Jill Stein is the candidate for you.

Johnson recognizes that gay rights is part of equal rights and that the 2nd amendment protects the first, not the other way around. Obama saying the second amendment was about hunting was just depressing. The second amendment is about freedom and liberty. And the protection of them both. Saying it is about hunting is like saying voting is about getting a free cookie at the election hall. It’s an added bonus but really has nothing to do with the right. To reduce violence, brought on by a few, you would strip liberty of the many?

Choosing between Obama and Romney is like choosing between government and corporate greed. Both greeds feed on each other, who care's which you start with.

I leave it to wiser men then me to decide if the two party system really is the right solution. Many point out that the Nazi party came to power through this multi-party system (although others would counter that they would have found a way to take control regardless), but I put my trust in John Adams, who agreed with George Washington when he said:
"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."