The Better of Two Evils

Often, when I ask people why they voted one way or another, they tell me it was the better of the two evils. Most of the time it is said jokingly, but there's always at least some hint of truth in their words. And it's true, we are often forced between two choices we do not like. This seems especially true when it comes to presidential candidates. But why can't we have the lesser of two goods to choose from?

The problem with the system is not necessarily the evils within it. There will always be people and candidates you probably won't like. The problem primarily lies with the fact that we have narrowed ourselves down to a two party system. There is nothing in the Constitution that states we must limit our votes to certain parties, or even a party at all.

There are lots of reasons why we have a two party system, such as the fact that the debates are controlled by an organization that is owned by the Democratic and Republican parties. But that's just part of the whole mentality that not voting for one of the two major parties is throwing your vote away, which has been shoved down are throats for longer than we can remember.

I hear people say, "Well I like this candidate, but they doesn't have a chance to win so I'm not voting for them. The proper way to look at it is, "This person supports most of my views better than anyone else. I'm going to vote for them and trying to support them as best I can." If everyone took more of an optimistic view towards elections, then maybe that candidate that you like could actually become president of these fine United States.

So go out and change the system so that you are voting for the better of many goods, rather than just limiting yourself to two evils.

Throwing Money Away - Presidential Elections

Officially, candidates for the 2008 Presidential Election have raised over $150 million, although that number is probably closer to $200 - 250 million by now. In 2004, the total contributions ran up around $880 million. The 2000 election drew in about $540 million. So, in less than a decade of presidential elections, about $2 billion dollars (adjusted for inflation) has been spent on bids for the White House. And that is just the tip of the iceberg. If you factor in all the money spent on elections for congress as well as the presidency, it's nuts. But let's focus on that 2 billion.

So what could you actually spend $2 billion on that wouldn't be a a complete waste? Well,

• a loaf of bread costs on average $2, so a billion loaves of bread could be bought with all of those greenbacks.
• About 4 million cheap $500 laptops could be bought for schools.
• Over 16,000 full-ride scholarships to Harvard could be given out.
• About 250 water treatment plants could be built in poor nations with bad water supplies.
• 4,000 $500,000 homes could be given to the less fortunate
• 0.023% of the nation's debt could be paid off
• Over 1 million high-quality body armor vests could be purchased for soldiers in our armed forces
• So much more...

So do you think all this money is going towards a worthy cause?

Ron Paul, Not Just Another Canidate

Ron Paul has been an Internet sensation since the first GOP presidential debate, but recently he has garnered more attention from his statements in the second debate. Although most of the attention Paul had been getting was from the Internet underground, but recently that has spilled over into the main stream media. But is Ron Paul really a serious candidate for president of the United States of America?

The simple answer is yes. This is the guy people should be looking towards if they are conservative. Paul is really the only candidate with the spine to show true conservatism instead of the stale taste of neo-Republicanism. It's hard to respect most Republicans in politics today because they do not follow the simple beliefs of conservatism that the party originally held.

Dr. Paul takes a position and stays on the position while talking straight to people about it. While I do not agree with all of his beliefs, he is the only Republican candidate who has shown any sign of integrity. Is what he said at the second debate, about America's foreign policy, inflammatory? No. You'd have to be a completely arrogant lying politican who wants a neo-fascist police state in America to not see that our previous Middle Eastern foreign policies have attributed to what happened on 9/11. Was Paul giving Osama bin Laden and other terrorists refuge because we are partly to blame for why they want to attack us? No, of course not. He was stating something that seems to be a taboo in politics these day, dissenting against the current government.

According to the latest FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll, Guilliani's numbers have dropped significantly in the last month. At the same time the other candidates have not really gained any more support, which moves a lot of people into the unsure category. In fact, people are equally supportive of Guilliani as they are unsure, both coming topping out at 24%. This is a good sign that people disagreed with Guilliani's message during the second debate, and candidates such as Ron Paul have a chance at gaining a chunk of that unsure category. With his ability to differentiate himself from the crowd with actual conservative views, the next month of watching the presidential race should be a bit more interesting.


Source: Polling Reports