You Must Always Choose the Lesser of Two Weevils

I don't know if you've seen "Master and Commander" starring Russell Crowe. Watch it if you need to be reminded of the need for heroism in our lives.

I don't like the fact that every four years we choose the candidate that we want to protect us from the candidate whom we feel will destroy our country if allowed to win. In my case, I'm voting for Bush, because Kerry is just about the worst candidate ever to run for President.

My problems with Kerry: His policy decisions are the worst of all senators. He has zero vision. He keeps telling us he has a specific plan for Iraq and the economy without mentioning a single specific, and he always chooses to do the popular thing without regard for whether or not it's the right thing. He seems to think the two are one and the same.

Yet I'm not totally fond of Bush: Why is it so hard to find a Republican President (or Congressman, for that matter) who will actually CUT GOVERNMENT SPENDING. Our national debt is outrageous, and he does this horrible, horrible thing by creating a new prescription drug benefit. He spoke that he would balance the budget, unless necessitated by war.

But then, of course, 9/11 happened and the world changed. But this War on Terror isn't going to end because Islamist fascism is not a state, but an ideology within which martyrdom to achieve the domination of others is considered noble. As long as some people believe it, we will be fighting this war against people who are not bound by agreements like the Geneva Conventions.

So be it.

But we must recognize that the world has changed, and that we will need to protect our citizens from attack in a way that's within our budget! Sorry, folks, but it's time to tighten the belts because we need to shift money from domestic services to things like intelligence and supporting our allies who are also struggling with Islamist fascists.

Bush doesn't seem to recognize this need, and I'd like to be able to vote for a candidate who does. (Bush's only advantage over Kerry is that he actually realizes that this is indeed a war that must be fought and won.)

Our voting system has one glaring problem (among others) that I'd like to see fixed: a plurality (50% minimum) of the vote is not required to win a state. Because of this problem, a voter cannot vote for a third party candidate without making it easier on the guy who he believes would be the worst of all worlds.

We're essentially going to electronic ballots everywhere soon, so we should easily be able to rank our top five picks or so. Then the machines would start eliminating candidates one-by-one (and the votes for those candidates) until a winner emerged. The problem is that (sad, but true) a lot of people in this country are just not that bright to figure this out. However, electronic voting machines could help keep them from screwing it up.

Would such a system really be that difficult and expensive to put into place? We're long past due for this.