Dear A.M. Costa Rica:
Just to let you know my edition of today’s A.M. Costa Rica seems to be missing the content you published on Gary Johnson to go along with this one: ” Editor’s note: The following stories profile presidential candidates. . . .” I would like to offer you this for inclusion in the discussion.
When you cast your vote you are signaling to others what it is you want.
But it is an imperfect signal. When a vote AGAINST a candidate is received, the vote is perceived the same as a vote FOR the other candidate as well as all of that team’s policies. There is no way to signal that you want some from column A and some from column B, or that you hate the other guy.
In the 2012 election Obama received 30 percent of the eligible votes, Romney received 27 percent, and the majority of the eligibles, 40 percent, chose to not participate by not casting a vote. We can have no idea whether that 40 percent signaled acquiescence or disgust or something else entirely with the choices.
When we run articles about national policies and futures, and we only discuss those issues and candidates who are served up to us, we do a grave disservice to what should be a noble undertaking. At some point, alternatives to doing the same thing we did before and hoping for different results should be discussed.
This year you are again offered a choice on the ballot for presidency of the United States in all 50 states of a candidate from an alternative party. The Libertarian Party has two former two-term U.S. State governors, Arizona and Massachusetts, running against the reality TV show that the legacy parties would have you choose from. Gary Johnson and William Weld are the Libertarian candidates this year.
You may not have heard much about them, and your content providers may not be including them, but if you were in the 40 percent of non-participants in 2012, or if you held your nose and voted against the other guy, you may want to take a look at this experienced governance team that is discussing the issues like adults and with solutions that will probably work at least as well as what has been forced on you recently.
My friend told me he is only discussing issues and candidates that will probably win. This can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Without airing other issues and options, these alternatives, of course, stand little chance of being chosen. Sometimes, just knowing that there is someone else trying may give hope to the disenfranchised and the disgusted that perhaps, just perhaps, the future need not be just like the past.
You’ll have to look a little bit harder just now to find out about Gary Johnson and William Weld. It isn’t all pretty. But compared to the clown car the two old parties have offered up, a vote for Johnson would unmistakably signal to the sclerotic duopoly that there are those out there who want something different. In 2012, only 3 percent of the eligible votes separated from the government party candidates. Make them stand up and take notice of you by denying them your vote.
See how good it feels to vote FOR someone and FOR something this time. You may not win, but since you haven’t been getting what you wanted from the old parties either, you may as well keep your dignity.