A Liar and a Drunk Uncle

If you had to make a choice between a “liar” and your “drunk uncle,” which would you choose? This is an actual problem facing the American people in the current presidential election. A focus group interview with 12 undecided voters, conducted by The Washington Post last August, vividly portrays the worries of American voters. “Liar” was the most common word chosen by the interviewees when they were asked to give a one-word assessment of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. A liar driven by the desire for power, who has lived by political tricks all her life. On the other hand, the participants described Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump as their “drunk uncle,” from whom they do not want to hear another word. “Hillary with her emails, I just don’t trust her. Trump, the way he acts. Every day you turn on the TV, and I just shake my head,” said Sheri LaValley, a 51-year-old analyst. Four of the interviewees responded that they are considering voting for a third-party candidate.

The email controversy and the Clinton Foundation scandal have brought more focus to “Lying Hillary.” However, Clinton has given different explanations each time and recently seems to have decided to not speak at all. According to FBI notes from their interview with Clinton, released on Sept. 2, 2016, she told investigators at least 39 times that she either does not “recall” or does not “remember.” Meanwhile, Trump planning to build a high-tech wall on the Mexican border greatly discomforts decent citizens who believe there are certain things that should not be said. For them, Trump is no better than the snobbish uncle who visits you drunk on Thanksgiving Day, saying it is those “damn foreigners” who make white Americans’ lives difficult and that they all should be deported.

American voters, who have no other choice beyond these two, are in a “Catch 22” situation: They have to vote but lack a just cause to do so for either candidate. The solution the American public came up with is to find the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of the two candidates. Even if you do not have a favorite candidate, you can still easily find the one you dislike the most. This leads to the idea that America’s drunk uncle is admittedly not a great fit for president, but a liar should never take office.

In the recent survey administered by the Pew Research Center, 53 percent of Clinton supporters say their vote is primarily in support of her, while 46 percent say their vote is primarily against Trump. Negative voting is more widespread on the Republican side: 44 percent of Trump supporters say their vote is for him, while 53 percent say their vote is against Clinton. This shows that more than half of Trump supporters consider their ballot more of a vote against the opposing party’s candidate than one for their candidate; they, too, do not necessarily believe Trump is the best fit for the White House. Compared to Obama supporters, of whom 68 percent said their vote was in support of him in 2008, there has been a huge drop in presidential candidate favorability itself. This personally reminds me of the frustration I felt during the 2007 Korean presidential race, which was a two-way race between Lee Myung Bak of the Grand National Party and Chung Dong Young of the United New Democratic Party.

Even the TV campaigns from both parties are more focused on attacks: It is an irony that Trump is featured more than Clinton in a TV ad from the Democratic Party. The current political climate provides a context for thinking over an institutional solution to break away from the framework of choosing one or the other. One possible alternative is to break the mold of the current two-party system and open the door to third parties and their candidates. In an online poll administered by ABC/SSRS on Aug. 21, 2016, 35 percent of respondents say they are considering voting for a third-party candidate. Under the current voting system, however, there is a 100 percent chance that votes for a third-party candidate will be dead votes.

Lowering the 15 percent threshold for participation in the U.S. presidential TV debates by itself will save American voters from the pain of watching an exchange between a liar and their drunk uncle.