The Stink Test Round 2

All of us have very strongly held beliefs, and this is a good thing. The thing I have noticed for a great number of years, is that I have had to chose to either not vote, or vote for someone who has mostly the same positions and values that I do, but holds a position or view I absolutely disagree with. That is where the stink test comes in. Am I willing to hold my nose as I vote because I completely oppose the other candidate, and there by give credence to a view I so firmly oppose?

There are those out there who say, better to get most of what you want, than to let the other guy win.

This was the logic used by those I knew who voted for Clinton the second time. That and "Well at least we know what he is."

It is this attitude that I believe has lead us to the mess we are in today. It also firmly enforces in me the need for more than 2 parties, and possibly a complete restructuring of our form of government. I truly believe that other democracies have looked at our model and saw the major flaw in it. No one else employs the Electoral College method of choosing a leader. They have also instituted a method of guaranteed representation. Their president is more a figurehead. The real power lies with the prime minister who is chosen by the party with a majority of the votes. Failing that, then coalitions are formed resulting in a moderating of some of the more extreme positions. The other plus for this form of government is that it allows for votes of no confidence and snap elections, thereby avoiding the need to wait 2 or 4 very long years to make any major changes in government. There are those who will point to some countries that seem to have very unstable governments and use that as a justification for not adopting that form of government. I say they are unstable because the politicians got caught lying and then had to pay the price.

Any thoughts or opinions?

Roy