By Rob Meyne
- Feb. 22, 2024
- 5-min read
If you’re like us, you’ve probably heard a lot of folks expressing the usual quadrennial complaint that “both candidates suck.” That may be a tad inelegant, but you get the point.
Many surveys show a huge majority of voters wish we had better choices.
You can count me among them. I’d love to be able to pick between Thomas Jefferson and Abe Lincoln. Let me know when we can work that out.
There is, however, this thing called “reality,” and it says that, barring a miracle, one of the two major party candidates will be elected president. The only relevant decision a person needs to make is this: under which of these two candidates can we reasonably expect the nation to be better off?
There is a lot of talk about the “lesser of two evils.” If one wants to look at politics in that way, be our guest. The question we would offer to inform the discussion a bit is this: in what part of life are we not faced with alternatives that are the “lesser of two evils?” Put another way, what part of your life is perfect? (My wife is perfect, and please tell her I said so.)
Most of human existence involves choosing from among two or more options, and they are never perfect. That is the nature of life, and certainly of human beings. As long as politics involves people, our choices among candidates will be imperfect. Get used to it, get over it, and next time support better candidates.
For today, let’s get back to reality.
For those who want to sit this one out – to note vote, or to vote for a third-party candidate with no chance of winning – you need to ask yourself whether the future of the country is more important than casting some kind of protest by way of a wasted vote?
If you don’t vote, no one sits and cries. No one will beg you to reconsider. No one will write it down and say, “Mr. Jones in Topeka didn’t like the candidates, so we need to do better next time.”
