Election Day Thoughts

Well, here we are. Election Day at last. Seems like it took FOREVER, right? 

No stickers for absentee voters.
I'm pretending this is mine.

Today, "I Voted" stickers will cover the country (or, at minimum, Susan B. Anthony's grave site), social media will take one last look at Ken Bone and his charming red sweater, and we the people will elect the next U.S. president. It's kind of a big deal.

As I've definitely made known, I voted for Gary Johnson. I've explained why I'm voting for him, but one thing I haven't really mentioned is this: I know he won't win. 

I'm not delusional. I've known from the very start that Gary had less than a snowball's chance in Haiti of becoming our next president*. And yet, I voted for him. Proudly so, I might add. 

Do you like your mom's posts
with that finger?

I voted for Gary knowing he wouldn't win. I voted for him knowing that I'm going to continue to hear that my vote was wasted. I voted for him knowing that I'll be blamed by some for the outcome of the election because somehow my vote for a third party candidate gave votes to, or took them away from, Mr. Trump or Ms. Clinton. I voted for him knowing that it was an unpopular position to take among my friends, and that some have chosen to hide my posts or unfriend me as a result. I voted for him knowing some people would get downright hostile about my decision and would probably think less of me because of it. 

 So knowing all of that, why did I do it?

Aleppo-shmaleppo, Gary's my guy!

I voted for Gary because I felt his voice best represented my own. I voted for him because I trusted in him over the other candidates. I voted for him because I believe he has this country's best interests in mind. I voted for him because the system isn't working the way I believe it should. I voted for him because I want him to reach the 5% mark so we are guaranteed more than two options in 2020. I voted for him because I wanted to vote FOR a candidate, not AGAINST one. I voted for him because when all is said and done, I will still feel good about myself and my vote. I voted for him because it was my vote to cast however I wanted, despite what others may think. I voted for him because it felt right for me.

I voted for Mr. Johnson because Ms. Clinton is well-spoken, polished, and prepared for the job, but she is a candidate I cannot trust. I voted for Mr. Johnson because Mr. Trump is bold, business-minded, and not afraid to shake things up, but he is a candidate I cannot respect. 

In the end, it doesn't really matter why I voted for Gary Johnson. Others who voted for him already understand and those who didn't aren't likely to care one way or another. But I have my reasons and I stand behind my decision.

I hope you stand behind yours as well.


*Yes, I meant Haiti, not Hades. The temps in Haiti are almost always in the 70s or 80s. This is not a place Frosty is going on vacation.

CNN: Censoring Nonconformist News

As I've pointed out, major news networks tend to ignore third party candidates. This happens all the time. But to flat-out censor the opinions of your own focus group to remove any concept of a third party option? That's just low.

Lower than low, really. (I'd say it's deplorable, but that word has already been taken this election season.) The following is from an article from LibertyBuzz, so yes, it's admittedly biased, but what news source isn't?

Clearly, the debates weren't on HBO.

After the debate, they asked all of us in the focus group if we were decided on a candidate. Out of 28 panel members, 5 said they were decided on Clinton, 2 said they were decided on Trump, and 12 said they were going to vote 3rd party. But once they saw the response, they reshot the segment and replaced "3rd party" with "still undecided".

This comes from a Facebook post made by one of the members of the focus group, Justin Smith. Later amended by Smith to clarify a few things, the post explains how CNN originally asked the group to raise their hands for either Clinton, Trump, or a third party candidate. CNN then told the panel they were going to re-shoot and removed the option for third party, leaving many to indicate they were "undecided" as this was the only non-Trump, non-Clinton option they were given. 

For the rest of this post, I'm going to make an assumption that Justin Smith's account of things is accurate. Do I know this for certain? No, of course not. I wasn't there and I only have access to what CNN.com has provided. It's entirely possible that it didn't happen this way. In fact, I hope it didn't. I'd like to think that we're not being censored from the truth. But if there's a chance that this all happened, the following is how I feel about it.

Moving on. 

The transcript for this, of course, only gives what was aired. Pamela Brown is asked whether the VP debate has influenced anyone's vote, and her response follows:

"It sure did. In fact, let's take a tally here. I want to ask everyone in the group, after watching this debate, who in this group will now vote for the Clinton-Kaine ticket come November? Raise your hand. All right. So as you see, we have five people who say they will vote for Clinton-Kaine.

If you're getting screwed in this poll, raise your hand.

Let's look at Trump-Pence. Raise your hand if you will vote for them come November. Two people. And those still undecided, still have no idea who they're going to vote for, raise your hands. All right, Wolf, as you see, a majority here in this room at the University of Richmond still undecided."

Except, according to Smith, about 40% of the people in that room had already indicated that they were planning to vote for a third party candidate. If you add those 12 to the seven who indicated they will be voting for either Trump or Clinton, 2/3 of the panel have already chosen a candidate. By definition, the majority of the room (with majority literally meaning more than half) is decided, not UNdecided. And to suggest they have "no idea" who they're voting for is simply not true.  

It's no surprise that CNN is backing Clinton. Not only is CNN notorious for leaning to the left (hence the reason my dad, among others, calls it the "Communist News Network"), but this Observer opinion piece points out that host Chris Cuomo let it slip in 2015 that they were one of Clinton's biggest backers. (If you watch the clip, he doesn't specifically say that CNN is a Clinton supporter. But since CNN is generally considered part of the media, and due to his use of "we" in his statements, I think we can safely make some inferences about where they stand.)

Still, CNN (and all other media outlets) has a responsibility to accurately report the news. I had to search around for their mission/vision statement and finally found it on the Cable News Network blog (via Wordpress). Under accuracy, it is stated that "CNN is committed to achieving accuracy. We strive to present the truth to our audience." They even specify ways by which they ensure accuracy, such as "guarding against carelessness and omission of important news" and "continuously seeking and reporting the truth." 

And then, under the section titled Objectivity, is this gem.

Totally checks out! *WINK*

CNN strives to provide the most neutral and unbiased stories to our audience so that they can obtain the most accurate information. We consider a range of varying perspectives and treat controversial subjects, as well as all other subjects, with impartiality.

So I wonder, then, which part of censorship they believe supports their mission and vision for the company. It's not accurate, as in doing so they both omitted important news and failed to report the truth. And it's not impartial, as the way they presented the information is clearly biased against third party candidates (and in favor of Clinton). Hmmm... 

Lastly, I want to share this statement from their career page We are CNN:

We are the now and the next. The power behind the people building the future.

We are born from the spirit of innovation.

We are created from the idea that people around the world want more, need more, deserve more.

We are the home of the global digital revolution.

We are CNN.

Well, they're right. We do want more, need more, and deserve more. Let's start with the truth (the WHOLE truth) and go from there.

The Third Party Disadvantage

I was 8 years old during the 1992 election year, still 10 years away from being able to legally vote. As part of our social studies curriculum that year, our elementary school held its own "election" for president. I don't recall who I voted for. If I had to guess, I probably voted for H.W. simply because he was the candidate my parents liked. On the other hand, I might have voted for Clinton because it was the popular choice in the school. I can, however, tell you who I didn't vote for: Ross Perot.

I don't know if the two-party system was explicitly taught to us, or if it was just inferred through what information we were given, but the idea of someone who was neither Republican nor Democrat running for president was strange and confusing to eight-year-old me. The butt of many jokes, Mr. Perot was running as a third party candidate, a term that seemed to carry some kind of stigma. Maybe my memories are distorted (goodness knows that will happen after nearly 25 years), but I don't remember anyone ever saying something positive to me about Ross Perot. I just remember people laughing at his big ears (something all too relatable for me) and more or less suggesting that dodos would spontaneously reappear and rule the planet long before he had a shot at the presidency.

Whether or not it was intentional, what I took from that year's election was that third party candidates were a joke. They certainly weren't to be taken seriously and, in most cases, they weren't even worth mentioning. Think back to the 3rd party candidates you can recall (if any) and what you thought about them. Remember Ralph Nader?  Does the name Patrick Buchanan ring a bell? How about Bob Barr? You might be thinking that these guys sound familiar, but would you consider any of them a "serious" presidential candidate? Probably not.

Take a look at the maps available at uselectionatlas.org. There is some really interesting data to see, especially involving candidates not falling into one of the two major parties. For example, in the 1992 election, Ross Perot took almost 19% of the popular vote. That means approximately one of five people in this country voted for Perot that year, but he still didn't get a single electoral vote. When he tried again in 1996, he didn't even reach 10%. of the popular vote.

Ralph Nader was on the ticket in 1996, 2000, 2004, AND 2008. The highest number of votes he received was just shy of 3 million in 2000, gaining 2.74% of the popular vote while running under the Green Party. In 1980, the Independent candidate John Anderson got a whopping 6.61% of the popular vote. John Hospers, a Libertarian candidate, managed only 3,674 votes in the 1972 election (which shows up as 0.00%) but managed to get a single electoral vote, the most any 3rd party candidate has gotten in recent history.

Is it any wonder so many people have trouble considering a non-Republic, non-Democrat as a viable presidential candidate? For a country based on the principle that "all men are created equal," we certainly don't treat our candidates as such. Instead, we scoff at the thought of someone running for office who is not affiliated with a major party and rarely give them a second thought.

It's time that changed.