Only Two

The more I hear, the worse it gets. Neither of the major party candidates is fit to be president. That doesn't mean that one of them won't be elected, but, as I've said may times before, it's a choice of the lesser of evils – and it's a bad choice. Unfortunately, only two narratives are available – one by a candidate who can only demonstrate ignorance and specializes in negative campaigning, and one who hides past activities and spends time primarily explaining why what is documented and reported is of no consequence. And the media take them seriously.

Below is a letter, variants of which I sent to several papers. As far as I know it hasn't been published, but that's not a big surprise. It deals with one of the (many) problems with our political system, and with the inability of voters to get adequate information to decide for themselves.

Before you vote for the lesser of evils, look elsewhere. More Americans oppose Mr. Trump and Secretary Clinton than trust them, but perhaps there are other possibilities. Because candidates lacking 15% support are excluded from the debates, however, they can't make their views known. (Like Governor Gary Johnson -- who piques my interest as a "none-of-the-above" candidate.) It's important, therefore, that those polled express a preference for third-party candidates and increase that "support," irrespective of how they are likely to vote on election day. The polls are not binding, but if we don't hear what other contenders have to say we're doomed to choose between the major party candidates. It is possible that the devil we don't know isn't a devil. But unless we take steps to give others a voice, we'll never find out.

Rather than using the vote for the purpose of choosing our leader, let the referendum be about the Congress that will work with a new president, who would be selected by our trust, and by the confidence that our future is secure in his or her hands. There are many issues at stake that might benefit from a divided government, forced to bargain, rather than single-party leadership and a president who lacks our credence. For example, who will choose next Supreme Court Justice? It's possible that a third-party president will make a less doctrinaire choice than a chief executive bound by a party's dogmas. And a new head of state who has less partisan baggage than those whom he or she opposes might be better able to lead us while dealing successfully with the rest of the world as well. But we'll never get a chance to make an educated decision if we let the networks decide whom we can hear.

The American people will make a bad choice in the election. That's a foregone conclusion, because the choices they have are bad ones, and the means of getting the information necessary to improve on it is limited by sources that have a vested interest in the decision.

Some nations have many more parties than we. It's messier, but they allow for the presentation of more points of view. It's hard to know if that kind of arrangement would work here or if it would change anything, but it would provide the opportunity for more opinions to be expressed.