Aftermath

Well, here we are. 

It's November 9th. The election is over. Donald Trump has won and will become our next president. 

Am I happy about this? Not particularly. Am I worried by the outcome? A bit, yes. Do I feel regret over how I voted? Not at all.

As I mentioned yesterday, I'm well aware that I - along with all other third party voters - am going to be blamed by some for the outcome of this election. In fact, it has already begun. Here's a sampling of what I'm seeing from people on my own Facebook friends list:

"How are you feeling, third party voters?"

"I blame... 3rd party voters."

"If you voted 3rd party... shame on you."

"If you voted for Johnson, just smack yourself - why bother voting?"

There's more, mostly in the form of memes and shared posts, but the general consensus re: third party voting is that I should feel terrible, shamed, and shouldn't have even voted.

And now, my response.

How am I feeling? I'm OK, thanks. Not great, mind you, but I'm hanging in there. I really thought Gary could get to 5%, so I'm definitely upset that he didn't, that there's no guarantee that 2020 will be any different. And I can't say I'm really looking forward to Trump's presidency, but it will be interesting to see where this takes us as a country. I want to see how people step up to fight against, or support, a Republican-run America. There is so much anger and sadness today, and that hurts my heart, but I also hope it pushes people to take action (appropriate, positive, non-dangerous action). Our votes are our voices, and last I saw, Hillary edged past Trump in the popular vote. That means that more people voted for Hillary, more people's voices screamed her name and wanted her leadership, yet Trump becomes our president-elect. This is how the system works, and clearly a LOT of people are not happy with that. So speak up about it. Keep using your voices until you are heard.

I will accept your blame if it helps keep the peace. I shouldn't accept it; I'm not truly to blame. You think that if I hadn't voted for Gary Johnson that surely my vote would have been for HRC, and that's why you're blaming me. You believe my vote would have helped your candidate, and that Johnson stole my vote away. Here's the thing about that: It's simply not true. Hillary never had my vote. Nor did Trump. Had they been the only two choices, I would have abstained from voting completely. Are there people out there who might have voted for Clinton if a third party option hadn't been available? Sure. But I'm not one of them. Nor is my Hubby. Many of us would have preferred to NOT vote rather than vote for "your" candidate. So you can blame me all you want, and I'll take it. I'll shoulder that for now because you're hurting and upset, because - particularly if you're my friend or family - I love you and I'm willing to do that if it will help ease the pain. 

Accepting your blame is one thing, but I refuse to feel ashamed of my vote. By telling me I should be ashamed of myself or by trying to shame me for my choice feels no different than bullying. Shaming me for voting for someone I believe in and admire? Shaming me for using MY vote for MY voice? Shaming me for not voting YOUR way? I've been raised to believe that voting is a duty and an honor. If I had voted any other way, I would have been doing myself and my country a disservice by letting my voice be silenced by those who are now trying to shame me. I voted for the person I truly felt was best suited for the role of president. In doing so, I have done nothing shameful or of which to be ashamed. I've taken your blame, but keep your shame. You may need it.

I "bothered" to vote because it's my right as a citizen of this country. Just as it is your right to vote for HRC, it is my right to vote for Gary Johnson. When I say, "Get out and vote!" what I mean is "Get out and vote!" Apparently, when some of you said "Get out and vote!" what you meant was "Get out and vote for my candidate!" You made it sound like you were encouraging me to exercise my right, but my right is to vote for whomever I choose. And yes, it is also your right to (try to) blame me and shame me for my decision. You are using your voice to convey your disgust and desperation, and you are entitled to do so. But here's a question for you to consider: Why? Why chastise me for voting third party and not almost half of the country who actually voted for Trump? Why use your voice to beat me down instead of using it against the party you're actually against? Why ruin friendships and burn bridges when you could be embracing an opportunity to engage in dialogue and hear different views? I "bothered" to vote because I wanted things to change. Now that the results are in, might you agree with that?

Donald Trump will be our next president, but don't blame me... I voted for Johnson. 

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.

Election Math

I'm guessing by this point that most people have heard someone say that voting for a third party candidate is either a wasted vote or a vote for the opposition (Trump or Clinton, depending on to whom you're speaking). You might even have heard President Obama say this very thing.

This donut's just a metaphor, right?

And to a certain degree, it has some truth to it. Say you're at work and tomorrow is someone's birthday. To celebrate, your boss says she'll bring in either donuts or bagels for breakfast. You can't/won't eat either (maybe you're going gluten free or cutting carbs or just hate fun), but you must choose one or the other. Half of your coworkers are saying, "Oh man, let's get donuts! Donuts are way better than boring old bagels!" and the other half are saying, "Bagels are CLEARLY better than donuts! Let's get bagels!" There are 20 other people in the office (and therefore 21 votes), 10 voting for bagels and 10 for donuts. If you vote for bagels, you're "taking away" a vote for donuts. If you vote for donuts, you're "taking away" a vote for bagels. Either way, people are upset with you and you're voting for something you don't even want.

Think of the same scenario, but you have the option to NOT vote. Now there are still 10 votes for bagels and 10 for donuts, but you're not voting. Or, if you prefer, you're "voting" for nothing. You aren't taking a vote away from donuts or bagels. You're just not giving a vote to either.

Now think of this scenario with a third option AND the option to not vote. Omelets, maybe (yeah, getting fancy up in here!). Hey, omelets sound good! So you vote for omelets. Now there are 10 votes each for bagels and donuts and a single vote for omelets. You weren't going to vote to begin with, so no votes are being taken away from either the donuts or the bagels. They still each have 10 votes.

The third scenario is how our elections work. We aren't forced to vote at all, and we certainly are not forced to choose between only two candidates. If you were given the choices of Trump or Clinton and you didn't want either, you have the option to not vote. Just like the bagels and donuts, your non-vote does not tip the scale in either direction. Likewise, if you already decided not to vote for Hillary or Donald but then found a viable third option (Johnson, Stein, etc.) to vote for, your vote still isn't tipping the scales in favor of either of the two main political parties.

Wait, when do I carry the 1?

Let's do the math. Of 20 people, we'll say 10 want to vote for Hillary, 8 for Trump, and 2 aren't voting. That's 18 votes total and the numbers favor Hillary. What each party wants you to think is that IF the two abstainers were voting, they would vote in favor of their/your candidate. And sometimes that might be the case. So if Team Trump can get to those two voters and convince them that not voting isn't an option, then we end up with a 50/50 split and Hillary loses the upper hand.

However, it frequently happens that the two people not voting really have no desire at all to vote. For any candidate. There is no "if they were voting" scenario, they simply were not going to vote. The numbers stay exactly where they were. So not voting does not tip the scales if you were never planning to vote in the first place.

This goes for supporting a third option as well. Let's say those 2 voters are voting for third party candidates: one for Johnson and one for Stein. They never considered another candidate and are set on voting this way. That's 20 votes total now, but the scales haven't tipped. That's still 10 for Hil and 8 for Don, plus 1 for Gary and 1 for Jill.


See? A vote for a third party candidate is just a vote for a third party candidate. That's all. It's not a vote for your opposition. It isn't taking away a vote from your candidate. It's not a "protest" vote. It's not a "wasted" vote. It's a vote, and it counts just as much (or as little) as anyone else's.

Why Gary Johnson?

I have a confession to make: My primary news source is Facebook.

Seriously! Scanning my Facebook feed not only shows me what my friends and family consider important enough to share, but also what is being discussed or shared on a bigger scale. I find it's the best of both worlds.

This isn't to say that I don't go to other sources as well. I frequently check the sites for my local news stations and papers. Google News is one of my most visited websites. In my recent browser history, you can find The New York Times, HuffPo, CNN, Slate.com, and others. I don't rely solely on FB.

My preciousssss...

But it is my first stop in the morning. And my most frequent stop throughout the day. I see a TON of political posts all day, every day. It has been this way for months and it will be this way for the next six weeks (at least). There is no escaping it and I've already come to terms with that. The problem is that the majority of them seem to tell me one of the following three things:

1) Why I should not vote for Trump.

2) Why I should not vote for Clinton. 

3) Why I should not vote for a third party candidate.

                                                    

I understand that, to a certain degree, every election is about why you don't want the other person to get elected. Vote for my candidate because the other candidate sucks. It makes sense. 

You know, like this.

I also see my share of "I'm with Her" and "Make America Great Again" posts (more of the former than the latter). These are the posts that usually have a picture of the candidate with some quote or tagline (or, these days, hashtag). These are at least positive, pro-candidate posts, so that's a plus.

What I seem to be missing, though, are the articles telling me why I should vote for one candidate or another. Why should I vote for Trump? Why should I vote for Clinton? Why should I consider a third party candidate? Surely they exist, but my FB feed seems to be void of such links. 

I can explain the lack of pro-Trump shares I see on Facebook the same way Trevor Noah explains why I had no clue who Tomi Lahren was before I watched this clip. Many of my friends, likes, and links are far more closely aligned with the political left, so FB probably thinks I have no interest in Trump-positive posts. And perhaps I can explain the lack of pro-Hillary links as a personal shortcoming. Maybe I'm just not looking hard enough. I mean, I've found a few links here and there, but it seems like more often I just see references to voting for Clinton to keep Trump out of the Oval (or vice versa).

I've been posting a bit about third party candidates lately, and I've made it quite clear that I plan to vote for Johnson/Weld in the upcoming election. But I have not shared why I am voting this way. 

Until now.

Why I Am Voting for Gary Johnson & Bill Weld

• Let's start with issues. Feel free to dive in at johnsonweld.com, or you can check sites like isidewith.com or ontheissues.org.



Can't we just squish it?

• Environment. Yes, you've probably heard that Gary says the sun will grow and encompass the earth. He also said that's going to happen billions and billions of years in the future, so forget about that for now. Johnson wants to protect our planet and is pro-EPA. He just believes that incentivizing/penalizing companies for their practices is an ineffective way to address environmental issues like global warming. He believes that we need to find ways to protect the environment, just not in that particular way. 
• Civil liberties. The former governors are all about personal freedom. If what you're doing isn't harmful to others, then keep on keeping on. They are pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and pro-legalization, among other things.
• War. What is it good for? Absolutely nothing. Unless we're being attacked first. Then it is ON. (But seriously, Johnson and Weld want to get our troops home, which I am totally behind.) Yes, he plans to cut military spending. No, I don't know how that will affect things. Yes, I still support him on this issue.
• Immigration. No wall. No deportations. No crazy stuff. Gary and Bill want to rework the system to make the immigration process more efficient. It may take some time. And it won't be perfect. But it might be better than what it is now, and it's definitely better than a wall.
• Other. I can't possibly hit every issue (at least, not without spending an unhealthy amount of time finishing this post), so I'll just get a few others in here. I am all for reducing the size of government. I think power should be divided/limited so no one governing body has absolute power. I believe in term limits across the board. I think reducing government spending is a good thing. I don't think we should be so involved in other countries' wars. The war on drugs needs to end NOW. And we'll stop there.
• His character. Yes, at this point I'm speaking just about Gary (though Bill seems like a pretty good guy, too). 





That's not misleading at all!

• Personal responsibility. Gary Johnson is flawed. He has had a few "gaffes" along the campaign trail. Like "What is Aleppo?" and failing to come up with his "favorite foreign leader" (not just ANY world leader, as many people/websites/news sources are suggesting). But he takes responsibility for his flaws. He doesn't try to cover them up or blame someone else. Of the Aleppo moment, he said, "No one to blame but myself for it. And no excuse." He also admitted that yeah, there are going to be a few more of these "moments" along the way. Because, you know, he's human. 
• Humor. He actually has a sense of humor and can laugh at himself. Always a plus, IMO.
• Determination and willpower. Gary has a TON of both. He sets out to do something, and then he does his damnedest to get it done. There's something to be said for that.
• Trustworthiness. Of the major candidates in this race, Gary seems (to me) to be the most trustworthy option. He seems genuine and honest, and so I am putting my faith in him.
• The campaign and supporters. They factor in, too.
• Positivity. The Johnson/Weld campaign has been quite positive overall. That's not to say he hasn't had negative things to say about the other candidates. Of course he has. But he's been largely pro-Gary rather than anti-Trump/Clinton. 
• Funded by people. The funds raised for this campaign have come from individuals (like me) who believe in him as a candidate. That's pretty awesome.
• Still going strong. People started calling for Gary to give up before he even got started, but his campaign is still going and his popularity is still rising. You're not getting rid of us that easily.  

Do I agree with Gary's entire platform? No. I don't think I've agreed 100% with anyone ever. Not even my husband or my best friends. But I agree with him more than I do the other candidates. Is he the most polished, most prepared speaker? Definitely not. But when he speaks, I feel like he means what he's saying, and that's more important to me. Would I have a beer with him? Probably not. But that's just because I'm not terribly fond of beer. If he's ever around, I'd gladly have an old fashioned with him and shoot the shit. 

That's MY voice.

Your Vote is Your Voice.

I want to open with something that I said on Facebook over 2 months ago:

I'm not huge on politics or posting about political stuff. Yeah, I post the occasional thing here or there, but mostly I prefer my world of puppies and rainbows. However, I feel like this is important to get out there. Important enough that I'm posting about it. So, you know, pretty damn important (at least to me).

https://youtu.be/HoQLL735QVE

Seems legit.

Before deciding that you "have to" vote for Trump or Clinton in this election - simply because you believe he or she is the lesser of two evils or that you have no other option - PLEASE remember that there are more than two parties out there and, as such, more than two options. A vote for a third party candidate is NOT a wasted vote - it is your chance to speak out!

If you truly want to vote for Donald or Hilary and you truly support him or her as a candidate then please cast your vote accordingly. I would never ask you to NOT vote for someone you believe in! But if you find yourself wishing for a third option, please watch this video and please consider voting for Johnson this fall.

The statement above is absolutely how I feel. If you are truly supportive of a candidate, I believe you should vote for him or her. Your vote is your voice. It's your way of saying, "Yes, I think this is the person who best represents me and my beliefs and who I think will best run this country. I believe in this person and the things for which they stand."

OK, maybe not THIS embarrassed...

Yesterday I wrote about the plethora of presidential candidates in the upcoming election. Prior to researching and writing that post, I really only considered there to be - at most - four candidates: Clinton, Trump, Johnson, and Stein. I already knew about the handful of others on Wisconsin's ballot, but I hadn't been thinking about them (nor the other myriad individuals who will appear on other states' ballots) as "real" candidates. And I have to admit that I'm more than a little embarrassed by that. 

In the past, I've written about not voting for one reason or another. I certainly received some criticism about my choices, but eventually, all was forgotten (if not forgiven). This time, things are (obviously) a bit different. I've been paying attention, having discussions, and doing my own research to make sure that I am an informed voter. I am proudly backing a third party candidate for the first time in my life, and I truly feel that he is the right choice for me.

Yet I have received more criticism for my choice of candidate than I ever did for not voting. When trying to advocate for Gary Johnson (because far too many people don't know who he is, or that there are more than two choices), I've been met with less than favorable responses. I have been told I am wasting my vote. I have been told that "a vote for Johnson is a vote for Hillary/Donald" as well as "voting for Johnson is taking away votes from Hillary/Donald." I have heard my candidate mocked for honest mistakes while other candidates are hailed simply for not being the opposition. And in trying to keep a positive attitude and open dialogue about this election, I have been let down again and again.

It's like you're not even listening!

When speaking about voting for Gary Johnson, no one has said to me, "Oh, that's cool!" Hell, no one has even said, "Well, it's your vote!" I haven't really been asked why I'm voting for Johnson or what I believe in politically that makes him the candidate for me. Most people don't say anything at all. Those who do almost never have anything positive to contribute. I have never been excited (or informed) about a presidential candidate before, and now that I'm finally able to join the conversation, no one wants to hear what I have to say. It's disheartening, to say the least.

Third party candidates are getting a raw deal, and so are their supporters. How do you know you don't agree with someone's policies if you aren't willing to listen to them in the first place? The issues we deal with are really complex. If you're just taking an individual's yes or no stance at face value, you aren't getting the full story. Why did they answer in that way? What reasoning do they have (or not have) for it? Do they have something to back up their response? How do they plan to handle the issue despite their response? That's a lot of questions left unanswered if you simply go, "Nope, I don't agree with that one-word answer. Not getting my vote. Done."

If you are set on voting for Clinton or Trump and you really feel that she or he is the right person to lead this country, then go for it! Like I said, I would never discourage you from voting for the person you most believe in. If you're planning to vote for Donald or Hillary but don't feel all that strongly about him or her, get out there and see what other options you have.  I'm not saying that learning about a third party candidate is 100% going to lead to you voting for one. What I am suggesting is that there is a lot to be gained by looking into the other options that may be available to you. You can learn a lot about what others around you are looking for, or about their beliefs and priorities. You might come to appreciate that even if you don't agree with everything he/she says, you actually can find some common ground. And knowing what else is out there might even strengthen your resolve to vote for your candidate, making you even more confident in your decision. None of this is bad!

And to those who are planning to vote for a third party candidate, for someone who has been ignored by the media and is relatively (or completely) unknown by the general public, I am truly sorry if anyone has made you feel like your choice is wrong or bad. If you believe in your candidate, you should absolutely vote for her/him. It doesn't matter if you shout it from the rooftop or quietly cast your vote in anonymity. Your vote is your voice! Make sure you get heard.

You get a vote! You get a vote! Everyone gets a vote!