Have you ever heard some deep thinking nincompoop state that if you vote for a third party candidate, you will be "wasting" your vote?
As one might see on the game show "Jeopardy!", the correct answer is, "what a ninny might say."
Now I'm not exactly sure what a nincompoop is, but I have a conceptual image of one in my head. As a matter of fact, that particular nincompoop happens to be running for a local public office. Go figure. He believes in the wasted vote theory of ninnies.
Now I know some brainiacs, bloggers, and a Ph.D or two who have also parroted this "conventional wisdom." Undoubtedly gleaned from like minded souls and held in reserve until the precise moment when they can spring this "common sense" argument on an unsuspecting third party supporter. And at first blush, it actually makes sense. I mean voting for a third party... well that's a lost vote for a party that can't win.
There's where the ninnies come in. As long as they believe this, the game continues. It's like an eternal shell game and no matter what shell you pick-you never find the pea. So you just keep picking a thieving democrat or a thieving republican. Believing that this time, you'll get the pea. But you never do. And fortunately, you aren't smart enough to quit playing or try something different. You are too mired in your existing belief system and well...government is glad you are. They will play the shell game just as long as you are willing to continue losing. Just keep banging your two thick skulls on that government wall.
A simple metaphor.
I have two men working for my business. They are both thieves and they steal from me. When I confront them, the first thief vows he is innocent and blames the other thief. The second thief claims the other thief is responsible for my losses and that he in fact is innocent. I turn to the evidence.
I roll the "not so secret" video tape. Both thieves are caught on film stealing from me. Gosh, what should I do? Keep both of them? Believe one and fire the other?
Or would the wise business decision be to fire both of them? Wow! Maybe I should just fire both of them! That's how my crazy mind works.
That is our current political landscape. We have two absolutely inept and self serving parties. They are made up of elite power brokers. They don't give two shits about public service or serving the vast majority of hard working folks that built this country. They are self centered and righteous. They enrich their lives. They tell constituents what they need to say to get re-elected, cut deals with lobbyists over cocktails, then receive handsome campaign contributions or no interest loans, maybe a future job as a consultant with whatever business they have enriched.
Here's Max Baucus of Montana. Career politician and leading the health reform charge. Just check out those contributors. Wouldn't you just love to see more current contributions...say those in the last 3 months? I'll keep checking.
First Elected: 1978
Next Election: 2014
SENATOR (D - MT)
Select cycle and data to include:
* Campaign Cmte Only
* Leadership PAC Profile Only
* Campaign Cmte & Leadership PAC Combined
* Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry
* Environment and Public Works
* Finance, Chairman
Cycle Fundraising, 2005 - 2010, Campaign Cmte
Raised: $11,502,866 Sparklines Explanation coming soon
Cash on Hand: $2,283,214
Last Report: Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Top 5 Contributors, 2005-2010, Campaign Cmte
Contributor Total Indivs PACs
Schering-Plough Corp $76,200 $64,200 $12,000
Goldman Sachs $47,900 $47,900 $0
KKR & Co $47,000 $47,000 $0
American International Group $46,750 $37,000 $9,750
Aetna Inc $45,250 $35,250 $10,000
Top 5 Industries, 2005-2010, Campaign Cmte
Industry Total Indivs PACs
Securities & Investment $839,650 $694,150 $145,500
Lawyers/Law Firms $684,354 $472,412 $211,942
Insurance $558,075 $259,525 $298,550
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $507,313 $203,964 $303,349
Health Professionals $504,641 $120,141 $384,500
The problem is that if honest politicians actually acted in the best interests of their constituency-they would not have any money in the form of campaign contributions to run for re-election. Paltry contributions from mom and pop farmer don't win elections. Big money is what wins elections. Big money comes from business and high finance. It comes from the elite like Warren Buffett and Joe Kennedy. And if you actually support the vast constituency, as opposed to big business and our Frankenstein government, big money contributions will flow to your opponent and they will take you out. Any honest guys finish dead last and are forgotten.
There is no win for John Q. Public in this scenario. He is hosed, plain and simple. Get a bad guy in, business makes sure he gets re-elected. Get a good guy in, one who supports working stiffs as opposed to big business and government, and big money takes him out.
Now I could go on a rant about campaign and election reform but just who is going to do that? Who is going to pass that law? The thieves who benefit from existing law? Not hardly. You'd have a better chance of seeing four horsemen just before you vanish in the rapture.
To simply vote incumbents out punishes the few who do good work. (But it's a start) That leaves us with the last remaining option. The only option that does not take an act of Congress-the only solution that remains. The citizens of this country must unite. They must unify under a third party or a fourth and fire those two thieving employees, Mr Republican and Mr. Democrat. Adios. Sayonara.
When I hear a nincompoop tell me that I wasted my vote when I vote for a third party, do you know what I say? The only wasted vote is any vote cast for any member of our existing two parties. A vote for either ensures that one thief will stay employed in my business. One thief is one too many. Now if you want to argue about who is a more clever thief, or an articulate thief, or a pro business thief, or an abortion supporting thief... well you certainly can. Interesting conversation for nincompoops perhaps, but not very useful.
I personally would like an honest, anti government, save me money worker if such a thing exists.
I have a business to run. So do you. I don't have time to waste listening to ninnies debate the merits of retaining one thief as opposed to the other thief. Keeping thieves employed is simply not part of any successful business plan. And government keeps proving it.