15 thoughts on “Threesome

  1. William, we have lived in a state of ‘take-it-or-leave-it’ political choiced from days eternal. Let’s go deeper to the reason this year’s version bothers you more. I’ll guess it is because this time it is serious. That the erosion of american society has reached a point where the distractions of sports and celebrity no longer soothe us, and we now have increasing concern that this is no mere bubble, but instead fear we are fully on the downside and gaining speed.

    Put me on the blame-the-elites team. Maybe it was easy to be an elite when America was on the way up and cruising on top, but easy or not, here we are…and the elites need to deal with how they put us here.

    Society needs to reinvest in our country–invest time and money and brainpower–and my lesson to the elites is if you don’t, someone else will, and when they do, you may find you are no longer one of the elite class anymore.

    So, you elite folks can feel free to cling to your God-fearing tax dollars, but you might want to do a quick self-assessment and if you find you don’t have time or brains, that is all you have left to give.

  2. Ellen Mrja says:

    William: Thanks for the background into that phrase. I’ve been wondering if we on TSRC shouldn’t conduct a little experiment: let’s take anonymous votes among ourselves as to a) The Candidate We’re Going to Vote For and then b) The Candidate You Wish You Could Vote For. Heck, we could even vote for c) The Candidate We Predict Will Win.

    Those are three different choices, perhaps, for many people?

  3. john sherman says:

    I’ve got an idea: how about allowing us the choice to cast either a positive or a negative vote? You still get only one vote, but you could use it to either add one vote to a candidate you support or subtract one vote from a candidate you despise. The only criterion for the winning candidate is that he or she must have a positive number of votes. This would certainly give us a more precise gauge of the sentiments of the electorate

      1. I like it! And think of the fun if both candidates…or all three, as in the governor’s race…ended up with negative totals, a bristling “none of the above” scenario. If that required a do-over with a new slate of candidates…brilliant.

        The only downside I can see is that we might not ever elect anybody.

      2. PM says:

        I did think of a possible downside–we’d have to design the ballot pretty carefully so that there could be no possible misinterpretation of a negative vote vs. a positive vote. Imagine the potential “hanging chad” arguments of a recount…..

  4. Hmmm…how about three boxes next to each candidate:

    Yes.
    No.
    Not in a million years.

    Anyone earning a plurality of the third option would henceforth be prohibited from seeking public office.

    1. PM says:

      Sort of a scarlet “N” (for “never”) to be branded on their foreheads?

      Think that would scare off the Chirstine O’Donnells of the world?

      naaaahhhh.

      but a good idea nonetheless.

  5. Mike Kennedy says:

    Or the Patty Murrays of the world. Talk about some ding dongs who are running or are holding office. But the old saw of “we get the government we deserve” is absolutely true.

    Imagine electing no one…………..well, the thought appeals to me, but then since we have to have representatives, I would go with the one who gets the least negative votes, even if the total were negative — gives the person something to shoot for in improvement.

    The way it is now, most of these people think any slight majority is overwhelming approval………….NOT.

  6. Reading all these romantic views of politicians on this blog can be depressing. Yes – romantic. It seems many of you are waiting for some charismatic somebody to meet your expectations of perfection in politicians. Just exactly who or what would satisfy those expectations? Who has in the past?

Comments are closed.