And the winner is?

I like the fall. Pretty leaves, cool crisp air, warm and tasty drinks, cozying up with my Sweetheart. I like it, really.

Except every four years wherein I will no doubt be, randomly and repeatedly, assaulted with the popular ice-breaking question, "so who are you voting for?"

Now I used to really care about this question. Being a vet, I felt that I had done something to actually earn my vote (before you get your panties in a twist, I'm not saying I felt that one must be a vet to earn it, just that it should be earned in some way other than being born within a certain range of longitude and latitude, i.e. on American soil). I have since relaxed about it and have a much less obsessive opinion about voting; this annoys people sometimes. I enjoy that feeling.

So, someone goes and asks that rhetorical question about voting plans and I respond with, "I live in California, so my vote doesn't matter." This elicits one of a few different responses:

1. The person I am conversing with says, "well the electoral system does dominate the voting process, however [fill in with your choice of intelligent political banter]". We then go on to have an intelligent and enjoyable conversation, with or without opposing views and feelings, regarding politics and government and economics. The ghosts of the founding fathers tingle for that brief moment with that delightful feeling that comes with a job well done. I walk away from the exchange happy to have had it and liking that person more, regardless of whether or not we had a consensus of opinion, because intelligent and open conversations are so rare in this world where everyone is so afraid of violating the PC anti-free speech laws. My Grandmother holds first place in this category of personal interaction (God bless her!), for those keeping score.
   
   
2. Or, the person looks at me with a deer in the headlights stare, tilts their head toward their dominant side and says, "what do you mean?" I then go on to explain, because I love helping to enlighten people, about how the electoral system works (or doesn't, depending on your angle) and why, in an extreme state like California, a vote can be meaningless as anything more than a silent waste of personal expression and gas. We may or may not get into a conversation then regarding politics and government and economics and I may or may not walk away feeling better for having had that conversation, depending on how open to conversation the person is. Note: open to conversation is not the same as being open-minded, and being open-minded is not the same as being empty-minded, although the far-left whack-jobs would love for you to believe that it is.
   


3. OR, the person lets out a horrendous gasp reminiscent of one that you would hear if you said that their baby wasn't cute then bit the head off of a kitten and spit it at them (the baby, not the person), ruffles their feathers and shouts, "THAT'S RIDICULOUS! OF COURSE OUR VOTE COUNTS! DON'T YOU WANT THINGS TO BE BETTER?!?!" They then spend five minutes explaining to me why their candidate of choice, political party of choice, and general view of government is the better one as though that would change the facts of how the system operates. More than likely they will throw in a few lines about what a terrible state the country is in right now to try and frighten me into a sheepish political viewpoint and how voting like them is the only way to change it.

When they, inevitably, pause to see if my face betrays any sign that their passion has swayed me uncontrollably to their side of the fence, I take that moment to wish I had a nice, large, hardcover political science book that was chock full of information. Then I imagine beating them in the face with it until the text rubs off onto their skin and some fraction of the knowledge contained within the volume is pounded, just a little deeper than their chosen political affiliation's propaganda, into the silly-putty they refer to as a brain.

I am not anti-voting mind you; the people of America having the option to vote is what makes this country what it is, for better and for worse (to be discussed another time: how democracy leads to its own downfall). I just have a solid understanding of how the voting process operates and realize that, because California is SO far left, a moderate and objective vote - such as mine, most likely - means nothing in this sea of liberal voters. That's just how it is, and that's okay. I choose to live in California so that is part of the package. That's the glory of how our government is set up; states are like their own little worlds and everyone that wants to live in a similar fashion, within nationally-sanctioned moral boundaries, can get together and say, "this is how we do it here. If you don't like it, move!" Now, if I was living in a swing state, it would be different. But I'm not, so it's not. But it's funny how accepting that I live in an all-or-nothing, socio-fascist, massive majority liberal state - and being open-minded and accepting of that - is somehow offensive to said liberals; the irony is painful.

Which brings me to my opinion on a "none of the above" vote. I firmly believe that there should be a check box (or touch button) labeled "None of the above". If that check box is selected more than either candidate, the executive office is then handed over to the Board of Directors of Google for thirty days. In that time, both parties must select new candidates - the previous candidates may not be included, since they failed to sway the public already - and at the end of thirty days the country has another go of it. Repeat as necessary. Should this need to be repeated more than three times, the Google B.o.D. are appointed "president" until the next normally scheduled presidential election. Oh yes, and Microsoft is given control of the military; hey, checks and balances need to be in place, don't they?