fine whine

This cannot be an original idea; it is just an unimplemented one.

To present it correctly, though, I need to oversimplify some things. Let's talk about animals. Say, perhaps, that the animals on the Donkey and Elephant farm decided that between them they needed to pick a single ass (or elephant) to lead them. There are, in fact, other animals around such as chickens, fish, owls, pigs and rats, but not in any sort of singular majority.

In other words, they don't have a shot at being the big cheese. Only donkeys and elephants make it to the top. Which is unfortunate, as there are a lot of other animals on the farm more qualified to be in charge. They just don't have the numbers or the momentum (it could be said that some animals are more equal than others) to succeed.

Okay, this metaphor (or whatever it is) is getting stretched to the limit. I'm talking about the two party system here in America. I'm not happy with my choices this time around, at least not for the big bwana.

I don't like supporting a candidate just because he isn't the other guy. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily the best guy to be in charge of me. I think that the system needs a slight tweak, then, so that I can feel a little better about my one vote.

We'd keep it to one vote per person, but (back to oversimplification) that vote could be for the donkey or for the elephant, or against the donkey or the elephant. Four choices, instead of two. Votes "for" count +1, votes "against" count -1.

So we'd literally be able to vote against the one guy without directly supporting the other guy. Blocs of voters could cancel each other out, so every single vote, plus or minus, matters. And we don't need to choose the lesser of two evils, but merely not the greater.