The lesser of two evils isn’t enough

“Wrong…wrong…wrong.” Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump’s words echoed through my living room as news outlets replayed his response to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton after the first presidential debate.

My dad and I, avid watchers of the debate, were on the verge of laughing at the absurdity of the situation, among several others of Trump’s comments. In that moment, we smiled at how childish this presidential candidate was acting, but as news commentators continued reporting on the issue, the thought of Trump actually becoming our president worried me.

From the other candidate, Clinton, I’ve had my fair share of “this is absurd” moments, from learning about Clinton’s receiving of presidential debate questions beforehand to repeated stories resurfacing about new details on the email controversy.

However, as we entered Election Day, a day crucial in determining our nation’s course over the next four years, the election was no longer a laughing matter. It shouldn’t be about choosing the “lesser of the two evils,” the “less corrupt” candidate or the one who will do the least damage to our country. I 100 percent agree that both the candidates are on completely different levels of “evil” and that one has spoken such things that time and again made us question the validity of his or her position as a presidential nominee.

But just because one nominee may be “better,” it doesn’t mean the “better” candidate is who we must choose as a nation. This is about the person who is going to represent our country for the next four years, not about cheating to win or “out-trash-talking” the opponent.

Sure, both candidates have their positives, things they’ve successfully accomplished, like Trump’s multibillion dollar company and Clinton’s previously held offices. But we aren’t a country that should compromise and settle for an okay candidate.

That is why, for the first time, the discussion of researching third party candidates became a prevalent topic in my household. While no candidate is perfect, this election opened my eyes to the possibilities of examining third party candidates and keeping my options open: my dad and I weren’t fine sitting on our couch laughing at the ridiculous drama between the two candidates; we wanted to support candidates who put our country first and their drama last. Having a third party system broadens the candidate pool and provides voters with a mixture of viewpoints, not only two opposing candidates.

This election isn’t about being a Democrat or a Republican or a third party supporter, and neither should any subsequent election. It’s about choosing the right leader for our country. And despite all the hatred and controversy this election has received, I truly believe that there is always something good that can come out of something questionable.

This year, what I’m hoping this election elicits is redirected attention to what future elections in our nation can be normalized to. Our government has been successful with this two-party system for decades now, but that doesn’t mean we can’t change. This election has taught me that it isn’t necessary to stick to the norm because we shouldn’t have to be limited to two candidates.

I’m hoping that our future elections will be open to a multi-party system where multiple candidates will have the opportunity to be our president. Our country deserves change if it will better our future. I don’t want to settle. The United States of America shouldn’t have to settle.

In my opinion, tonight, we are settling for the next four years with Donald J. Trump as our future president. And all I can hope for now is that Trump puts aside all his drama and focuses on reasonable measures to put our country first. We can’t live the next four years under a facade of lies, so I truly hope that our new president will tell the truth, make responsible decisions for our nation and represent our country the way we deserve to be represented to other countries.

The real question is, in the future, how do we not settle for candidates? Voting for the candidate that seems most appropriate in the available pool seems like the natural solution, but we need to be more critical of candidates early in the nomination process and encourage people with diverse political views to enter politics and expand our candidate pool for future elections.