It's good to see the occasional letter from another person who has connected the dots: Steven Ziemba's editorial on the topic of third party candidates.

The reality is that votes for Democrats or Republicans are wasted votes. Think about it. The richest country in the world has a lot of people struggling with health care, higher education, and just plain living, while politicians swim in seas of money.

While the Republicrats hire political strategists and manipulate outcomes with huge ad campaigns, redistricting, etc., third party candidates talk about issue after issue. The simple reason they can keep focused on the issues instead of the horse race is that there's not a lot of money putting the pressure on them to get results.

With the Internet you can find out as much or more about an obscure third party candidate as one of the big two. You then have to take a step back and look at the candidates objectively, disregarding labels like “viable” and “long shot.” Look at what the incumbent has actually accomplished.

Then it's quite simple. If you think that America has progressed and is on the right track, vote for your favorite of the big two. If you want change (health care, living wage, etc.) don't expect it from either of these two parties.

Indeed, a strong showing for third party will affect what the Republicrats do once in office far more than a few more thumbs up for either of them. The pressure of knowing that there are many more people with their eyes open who aren't afraid to vote (and think) outside the box will push these scoundrels a little closer to doing the right thing.

That's the paradox of the third party vote. Your candidate has a snowball's chance in hell but it's the only vote that will count toward change.

Joe Lonsky

Genoa