The election conundrum

I was planning to write something more substantial about the election, but I ran out of time, so this has to be just a note and I will write about lesser evilism in the future.  It is possible I'll change my mind before voting, but I will probably mostly follow endorsements by the Independent Weekly (www.indyweek.com), the Durham People's Alliance (www.durhampa.org), and SEANC, with some exceptions. 

I considered arguments for voting for Hillary Clinton, but she seems very dangerous, and people seem to be exaggerating the danger posed by Trump and his chances of winning in order to make voting for Clinton more palatable.  After the last debate the media spent a lot of time saying how shocking it was for Trump to say he might not accept the results of the election (something that Gore should have done in 2000 and that has happened in many countries, such as Mexico), but what I find shocking is how Clinton was allowed to dodge a question about Syria and what would happen if a Russian jet enters an illegal US-imposed no-fly zone.  A no-fly zone seems to mean directly attacking the government of Syria (to destroy its air defenses) and possibly Russia as well, so a vote for Clinton is a vote for war, maybe in just a few months.  In the last debate, Clinton had a chance to explain why a no-fly zone wouldn't lead to war, and she said something not believable about negotiating with the countries she has vilified for years.  Trump isn't anti-war, but he might not be as eager to go to war with Syria and he seems more likely to negotiate with Russia than a Democratic administration that blames its electoral and foreign policy problems on Russia.  Probably neither the US nor Russia wants a third world war, but a world war probably wasn't planned in 1914 either, and both sides spent decades trying to avoid a hot war between nuclear armed superpowers.  A NATO country has already shot down a Russian plane over Syria and the confrontation seems likely to escalate if the US starts dictating who can fly over a sovereign country without even the figleaf of a UN Security Council resolution, and European countries would probably only join a war against Syria if there is UN approval.  On NPR's The Diane Rehm Show recently a probably influential think tank official said Putin is willing to die over Syria, and we should be too, and there was no push back at that chilling and irrational statement.  I think it was a journalist talking with Charlie Rose on PBS who claimed it is too late to attack Syria and overthrow the government with US proxy forces, but even if Clinton can't attack Syria, she is "hawkish" (the media's term for a hardcore warmonger) and is likely to find other unnecessary wars to add to the ones the US is already engaged in.

Unless something big happens, I'm planning to vote for the Green Party's Jill Stein for President (www.jill2016.com/).  The media tries to ignore third parties and most voters go for the same old bipartisan system, so Stein is unlikely to win, but I'm not so afraid of Trump that I want to vote for Clinton, and it seems likely that Clinton will win anyway.  Write in "Jill Stein" on paper ballots in North Carolina, and the vote should count (see ncgreenparty.nationbuilder.com/how_to_write_in_jill_stein_for_president_in_north_carolina for instructions for electronic voting), and if she gets 2% of the vote, the NC Green Party will appear on ballots officially in the future, as the Libertarians do this year.  I think getting 5% of the vote nationally will also give the national Green Party access to public campaign funding.  According to Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016#Other_third_parties_and_independents) Jill Stein is the only left candidate whose votes will actually be counted in North Carolina.  Lamont Lilly of Durham is the Workers World Party's vice presidential candidate (vote4socialism.org), but a write-in vote for Monica Moorehead and Lamont Lilly won't be counted.  There is a long article on Lilly in the current issue of the Independent (I notice that they also have an article against the Libertarian candidate, but avoid mentioning the left alternative, Jill Stein, unless they profiled her in a previous issue).  The Party for Socialism and Liberation, Socialist Equality Party, Socialist Party USA, and the Socialist Workers Party are running presidential candidates, but according to Wikipedia any votes they receive in NC will not be counted, nor will write-in votes for Bernie Sanders, while a vote for Jill Stein would help build the Green Party as a left electoral alternative to the Democrats.  I have an open mind, but I find it surprising that some Marxist parties have actually endorsed Clinton.  The Progressive Labor Party advocates boycotting elections.        

Since we have been hearing about the presidential candidates for so long and they are familiar figures, it might be easy to decide who to vote for, but state and local candidates can be more slippery.  For example, State Senator Mike Woodard (in District 22) seems progressive and is endorsed by the People's Alliance (but not by the Independent this year), but voters might be surprised if they look into how their state legislators have voted (it is very easy at www.ncleg.net).  Woodard and other Democrats voted for the Iran Divestment Act (Senate Bill 455), while even the Obama administration is working to reduce tensions over a non-existent nuclear weapons program.  He voted for the Property Protection Act (House Bill 405), which seems like an ag-gag law that punishes whistleblowers, rather than those guilty of crimes such as animal abuse and violating environmental laws, though he claimed in The Durham News last month that it does not do this (the text is online and voters can judge for themselves).  Even rightist Governor McCrory was against the bill, but Democrats and Republicans voted to override his veto.  HB 553 prevents counties or cities from regulating the standards of care for farm animals, though possibly there are rigorous State laws already.  There is also the questionable HB 574, excluding opossums from the protection of State wildlife laws around New Year's Eve, for one town's annual possum drop (the wild possum isn't killed, but it may still be a bad practice).  This is just from a brief look through voting records, and I didn't follow the General Assembly closely this year, so there could be other questionable votes by Senator Woodard and other incumbent Democrats.  I would like to see the Democrats control the General Assembly, Council of State, and Executive branch again, but it would be better if there were more progressive alternatives, such as Green candidates.  I will have to think further about the District 22 election and other General Assembly elections.     

US Representative David Price is also up for election and probably won't try to stop Clinton from attacking Syria or other countries, given his record on Iraq and Palestine.  If Trump wins, it would be good to have Congress controlled by the Democrats, but if Clinton wins, maybe it would be better to have Republican control, though most Republicans would probably follow Clinton into a war and they wouldn't support the progressive domestic promises that Clinton actually tries to implement.  I'm against pro-war and pro-torture US Senator Burr, but Deborah Ross supports Clinton on Syria.     

The Durham Board of County Commissioners was basically selected in the primary election, but I am also conflicted about voting for incumbents who helped approve the rezoning for 751 South, a dense development planned for a rural area adjacent to parkland around New Hope Creek and Jordan Lake, though it does not seem to have been built yet.  As usual voters have to hunt for information about the Soil and Water Conservation District Supervisor race, but there is a lot of information about the judicial candidates.        

Whatever happens, a person's vote belongs to them and in the solitude of the voting booth (if they can get one), they will have to decide who they want to support or can vote for in good conscience versus the odds of other candidates winning.  A large percentage of people who are eligible to vote won't, but if they did, maybe the election would turn out differently.  If Gore had energized more people, maybe there would never have been an opportunity for the Supreme Court to steal the election for Bush and the Democrats wouldn't have to scapegoat Nader for winning a few votes the Democrats think they own.