The frontrunners for election 2008 are set, and the battle-lines are already drawn among hardliners. Between the status quo duo, Americans engage in grueling debates on important issues whose manifest danger unites us, all masterminded by name-taking prime movers who crash every party with both barrels blazing.
So far, it has gone like this:
Now now children, there is plenty of room in the sandbox for both of you.
Ralph Nader: What about me?
I said both. You and your cronies, you just stay in the mud, okay? Godspeed.
I believe if you vote Republican or Democrat, you're throwing your vote away.
You most commonly hear different, that if you vote third party, then you are throwing your vote away. But that is completely senseless. When your options are two parties, none of whom have a better track record than the other, both of whom and their candidates are force-fed to the general public by a mainstream media seeking to maintain a tilted table, and you not only continue to vote like this, but you willingly keep yourself in denial about the truth, then who's truly throwing their vote away? By voting third party, at least you're acknowledging that other options exist.
At least you're exercising freedom of choice. How about everyone else?
The choice of a third party candidate represents real choice. It's as simple as that. It also represents real change. Yes, change, that heavy, striking buzzword playfully tossed around by both Democratic presidential contenders, especially Barack Obama. No one understands the change offered by third party candidates because no one understands third party candidates. No one pays them attention, save for a small group of frustrated Americans who see the truth, who see the flaws in the system and seek to correct those flaws while everyone else is content with taking the club out of the ogre's hands and putting it in the hands of an ogre who looks a little less threatening"-and a little more amicable.
But just as dangerous.
Summarizing the goals of all third-party candidates will take too much space, and I am not a shill for one candidate or another, so if you wish to find out more, this link will help present a comprehensive overview:
Now, I bring this up for one reason: I might vote.
Obviously, my options are third party or one of the big two. Which do you think I'll go for? The answer may not be as obvious as it seems. The issue with voting third-party, while representing true choice, is that due to the current set-up of our system and the mainstream media's tiresome promotion of the Republican vs Democrat divide, I do not believe that a third-party candidate can win. In order for that to happen, we need a complete overhaul of the system.
So what will I do? A good question that I am not prepared to fully answer. Will I exercise freedom of choice? Will I throw my vote away? Regardless, what I will not do is vote for the "lesser of two evils." I heard that thrown around a lot in 2004 with reference to John Kerry. "I'm voting for Kerry because he's the lesser of two evils," and no doubt this year you will see the same sentence, Obama or McCain swapped for that weakling's family name.
To do this, it is far worse than merely voting for the status quo. It is not a choice. Not even close.
If you approach the election like that, you're better off not voting.