With the Democratic and Republican conventions over with, it seems all I've heard is how bad the other party is. It seems like one animal flinging his poo at another. Trump will use hateful rhetoric without any clear plan as president (besides forcing Mexico to pay for a wall), and Hillary and the democrats will talk about how awful Trump is (which one could go on for hours about, I’m sure). So, what I see is this case of having to choose the lesser of two evils. I have to vote for Trump because Hillary is a corrupt politician and liar, or I have to vote for Hillary because Trump is the next Hitler. If you vote for a third party, you are "wasting your vote." Unfortunately, it doesn't seem, through their rhetoric, any complaints of either candidate are very arguable. Republicans will do anything to avoid a Hillary presidency, and Democrats will do anything to avoid a Trump presidency. I've had people tell me the reason they are voting for Hillary is because they can't allow Trump to win. I've heard former Bernie Sanders supporters tell present Sanders supporters to join Hillary because we can't accept Trump. But, when we are arguing about who the lesser of two evils is, we are missing the point that either is an unacceptable, ever increasing degree of evil.

Sure, if Hillary wins she will be a part of scandals like she has throughout her career. And if Trump wins, I don't actually know because, again, he has laid out no plans, but that sounds like a bad plan as well. So, if either of these people win authority over the land there are rational concerns over the future of this country.

There are a lot of real concerns that people have about these candidates (and even Gary Johnson isn't very impressive as a Libertarian candidate) and I fear the further we go down this road of "lesser of two evils" the eviler the lesser will be. George Bush was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people (indirectly), and Obama authorizes drone strikes that blew up schoolhouses halfway around the world. These are horrible things, and by accepting evil at the voting booth you are just asking for more and more to come knocking. The more our society chooses the lesser of evils, the higher the degree of "less evil" will get because, well, evil people are always those who gravitate towards seats of power. Anyone who knows me will tell you I am not a Bernie Sanders supporter, and I don't agree with most of his policies as they have to do with more centralizing of power. But at least when you looked at the guy you could feel some amount of honesty, some amount of integrity of care in him. When I look at Trump I see a total douchebag who was handed millions of dollars and a network he could depend on. I don't see any humility in him, I see dangerous hateful rhetoric that can, and has, incited violence. When I look at Hillary I see a liar. I see a person who, when confronted with scandal, scoffs it off like she is above the law (who could argue with her with the evidence we've seen?). She seems like someone who does what she wants, how she wants, for her own benefit and without care of the consequences. So the inherently "good" guy in the race was forced out in a shady, clearly rigged, system, leaving us with the two evils that stand before us. That is no system that can be conducive to helping society as a whole. That is a system that is stacked against society, at the command of the elite who lobby their way into the system.

The idea of voting is that we as a society are represented by others to create an environment in which we fell that we are happy. But looking at it, are the majority of voters even the majority of society? In our case, it doesn’t seem that the majority rules, but the voting majority, which should be considered a small minority of the collective United States. In 2012, as of July 1^st, there were an estimated 313,914,040. That election, there were 3,172,930voters. A quick estimation is that a little over 1% of the population is being represented as voters, that doesn’t even account for the losing minority. So, even if you believe the that the system works, and that the evidences of corruption aren’t blatant enough, you still can’t justify the “majority’s voice” through the voting booth because such a small minority of people vote. Can you blame them? Decades of varying degrees of corruption, what seems like a disconnect from the people and the state, when evidence of rigging and corruption are clear, these things really don’t motivate anyone or create a belief that their voice will be heard. Their claims seem to be substantiated the further into the future we go.

Another big problem I see is the argument for the lesser of evils. This sounds like fortune telling. Someone trying to read the future. We can look at Hillary Clinton, and we can make a case that a Hillary presidency could lead to disaster. It could just as easily be said that Trump would be the same. Creating hypothetical future happenings that benefit your agenda is in no way scientific, factual, or even rational. It’s delusional, and almost comical. If someone can give me evidence of all the consequences of yet to be created rules or regulation, some of which probably not even thought about yet, I would be willing to listen. But, I think most would agree that this is most impossible.

Then there is the problem with campaign financing. There were $30 million tax dollars spent on last year’s election (I’m sure the one percent of voters didn’t contribute that all themselves), and too much private sector money and labor spent on these campaigns to see or quantify. All of that tax money could have been put into other avenues, such as grants for states who look to upgrade police training, with the national outrage unfolding before our eyes. What about all the labor that went to these funds? All the people contributing to a system that doesn’t help society, distorts and depresses the economy. It takes people out of the market and puts them in a market that will undoubtedly just lead to destruction at some point. But, people will argue, they do that voluntarily and that is a good thing. But, that is arguable. Funding or volunteering for a campaign is someone trying to defend their rights (by funding the candidate they think will do so) or pre-emptively attacking what they see as a future aggressor if they gain power. That doesn’t seem like a voluntary decision, it seems like someone is forced to defend their ideology and use their resources in doing so. All those resources wasted on flinging poo at each other could be used build homeless shelters, upgrade communities, invest in innovative technologies, or protect or restoring the environment. These are some of the unseen consequences of the problems we face a society within a system that doesn’t seem to care to listen.

So, what do we do when the voting booth isn’t the place to vote? Well, there a lot of ways to vote. You can write politicians and let them know that they will make sure the votes change next time if they don’t listen (hasn’t been working), we could leave and look for environments we find more comfortable with a state that we believe will listen to our will. We could collectively start using the black market to trade and starve the state of its precious funds from plunder (taxation). If the state becomes too tyrannical violent rebellion could be justified. There are many ways we could do it, it just takes a critical mass of us to do so. What will it take us to realize the voting system doesn’t work and it is just a show the powerful put on or a complacent, ignorant audience? It is time people start caring about what is happening around them, the state we live under is one of the most corrupt, abusive, dangerous entities in existence today. I don’t think we as a society are that violent. I don’t think taxpayers want to put their taxes towards things they don’t agree with, or even worse, no about. Why can’t we put our resources where we see most necessary? If we did this we could see how often our objectives intertwine with others, and how important cooperation with others is. Maybe it will take a little more evil for people to get it. Maybe it will take a degree of overbearing regulation, to others it may be seen in violence from the state. But one day it seems inevitable we will all be fed up with the state. But, what happens if it is too late, and the state is too powerful to stop? That is a day I wish to deter. That is why I advocate for peaceful cooperation and a higher respect of life and the individual. Because if we can accept these qualities we can live in a place where we aren’t plundered and restricted at every turn. We can live happily amongst each other. We, as a whole, may not be ready for it yet, but I look forward to the day it’s a conversation a majority are willing to have.