Give Third Parties a Chance

As the 2016 presidential election moves into its general election phase, it’s important to remind voters that there are other choices for president besides the nominees of the Democratic and Republican parties. This is especially apparent in the current election, when neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton appeal to certain groups of voters. It is for this reason that the nominees of the country’s major third parties such as the Green and Libertarian parties should be included in general election debates and polling. American voters ought to be informed that there are other options on the ballot in November who might better represent their views.

Third-party candidates like Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson and Green Party frontrunner Jill Stein already have a fair-sized base of support and continue to have improving numbers in the polls that they have been included in; however, the majority of voters are often unaware of third-party candidates because these parties receive such poor coverage by the media and groups attempt to keep third-party candidates off the ballot in certain states.

Only inclusion in the debates and polling can spread greater awareness of these candidates. Even if one doesn’t agree with the views of the third-party candidates, American voters should still have a right to know all of their choices, no?

Hayden Smith

Hanover

The Problem With Primaries

Grace Pipes’ June 5 Forum letter headlined “The Way That Fascism Comes” inspired me to make an observation about our current system of primary elections.

Here in New Hampshire, we experienced a dramatic flaw in the primary system: There were nearly 20 candidates on the Republican ballot. I realized that I had absolutely no idea who half of these people were. Apparently, I hadn’t done my homework. There were three that I recognized as capable for the presidency — governors of three large states. I suspect that what happened was that the votes of thinking people were split among those three candidates. This resulted in a maverick type, Donald Trump, winning the primary. He was certainly not the choice of the majority.

It seems to me that this flaw is something we should not abide. The alternative is to revert to the way most republics work: voters elect a local political type who we trust to go to a convention where the candidates are selected. In theory, the people we send are people we trust to use their common sense in the context of integrity, morality and good faith. Nowadays that is a tall order, but maybe it’s time that we give it another chance.

Charles L. Russell

Lebanon

Reconsidering the A-Bomb

Regarding the recent Forum letters on the atomic bomb and the choice to use the weapon: My father, who recently passed away, was a junior lieutenant in Naval research and intelligence during the latter half of the war. Toward the end of his long life he would often wonder whether the bombing was necessary. For, as he told me, Japan was sending the U.S. messages that it was ready to discuss surrender.

It is known that the military had a fascination then for trying devices out on people. There were human experiments conducted by us, during and after the war. Additionally, there were experiments, using nuclear bombs, on fleets. Yet what would a nuclear bomb do to a city?

The U.S. never was, and in recent history certainly has not been, an “angelic state.” We have done wrong, and should be open to criticism. This is a general rule, of course, but certainly is true when there is reason to believe some grievous error may have been committed.

The first bomb, “Little Boy,” was dropped on Hiroshima, and then, only three days later, “Fat Man” was dropped on Nagasaki. I submit that we may have dropped the bombs not to end the war, but were attempting to use them before the war ended. We will not know until the secret files in Washington are opened.

John G. Lewis

New London

Headline

On behalf of the Staff and Board of Directors of Advance Transit, we would like to take this opportunity – following completion of all town meetings – to express our sincere thanks to the voters of Hanover, Lebanon, Hartford, Norwich, Enfield, and Canaan, for again generously supporting our valuable services for Upper Valley residents.

Last year Advance Transit saw over 900,000 boardings on its commuter and shuttle routes, in addition to its ADA trips. As this ridership continues to grow annually, AT is even more appreciative of the support of communities, businesses, and individual donors who make our important services possible.

We would also like to take this opportunity to alert the residents of the Upper Valley of a new smart phone app which will allow riders – and hopefully, riders-to-be – to more accurately track their desired routes and coordinate boardings with their work and personal schedules. The Advance Transit app may be found in both Google Apps and Apple. Try it out, see how it works for you.

Again, our sincere thanks for the wonderful support.

Jim Tonkovich

President, Board of Directors

Van Chesnut

Executive Director