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.

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.

How Many Candidates Can YOU Count?

Ah, Election 2016! I think it's probably pretty obvious that I'm voting for Gary Johnson. In fact, by now, I think a lot of voters are pretty sure they know who they're going to vote for this fall. But when considering the possibilities for president, how many candidates are people actually counting as being "in the race"? Two? Maybe three? Possibly even four?

In Democratic America, Workers World Party votes for you!

At this point, we are about six weeks away from Election Day and tonight is the first official debate. Those tuning in will see Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump respond to questions (and to each other), but they will not see Gary Johnson do the same, despite being on the ballot in all 50 states. Jill Stein will be on the ballot in 45 states (including D.C.), but she won't be on the stage either. Socialist Party (er, "Peace & Freedom"?) candidate Gloria Estela La Riva won't be up there, nor will Independent Party candidate (and former CIA officer) Evan McMullin,. And of the seven candidates set to appear on the Wisconsin ballot, five will be missing from tonight's debate. 

The debate stage isn't the only place third party candidates are being snubbed. Most media coverage seems to be making a conscious effort to avoid third party candidates. About a month ago, I read a CNN.com article about Gary Johnson and his fundraising efforts. Good, I thought. They're covering Gary! So I hopped over to the "Candidates" part of their Election 2016 section to learn more, only to find Clinton and Trump staring back at me and no mention whatsoever of Johnson. (For the record, if you check the section now, they do have polling numbers for both Johnson and Jill Stein, but you have to scroll down the page for pictures or additional information.) Another example: This past weekend, I was watching Face the Nation at my parents' house and couldn't help but cringe every time the host referred to Mike Pence and Tim Kaine as "the two" VP candidates. I kept correcting him, first in my head, and eventually out loud. "Two of the VP candidates. Not THE two. Stop that! You're getting it wrong!"

And they are. We may refer to it as a two-party system, but there are TONS of candidates out there! To suggest that Pence and Kaine are the only two VP candidates out there, or that Trump and Clinton are the only options for president, is just incorrect. With the help of Politics1.com, let me break this down for you all.

Number of candidates in tonight's debate: 2

Number of candidates on the ballot in all 50 states: 3

Number of candidates on the ballot in at least 20 states: 5

Number of candidates on the ballot in at least 6 states: 10

Number of candidates on the ballot in at least 1 state: 31

Number of candidates w/out ballot status, but available as write-in: way more than I'm willing to count right now (seriously... there are a TON)

A nation divided.

We're an incredibly diverse nation with multiple races, ethnicities, religions, sexualities, gender identities, condiment preferences, political affiliations, and more. How could we possibly everyone to fall under one of two candidates? So next time you think about how many candidates there are in this presidential election, remember this crazy long list of contenders. They may not be your candidate, but they're someone's candidate. (Yes, even the guy from the Pirate Party.) Everyone needs someone to believe in.

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.