Readers Write (Sept. 12): The 2016 campaign — Johnson, Stein, Clinton, Trump

Gallup Polls consistently show that at least 47 percent, and usually well more than 50 percent, of Americans believe a third choice for president is needed. In a three- or four-way election, 47 percent is enough to win.

You can't cast a meaningful vote without knowing about all viable candidates. Yet the Commission on Presidential Debates refuses to include all candidates who have a mathematical chance to win 270 electoral votes. The requirement imposed by this undemocratic "bipartisan" commission for inclusion in the debates is that the candidate be supported by at least 15 percent in national polls. Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein have been essentially blacked out of corporate media coverage for a year, and most polls either do not include both Johnson and Stein or they "push" the selection of Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump by first asking the voter to make a choice between those two.

As a voter likely to be polled, you have an opportunity to protest and possibly change this by refusing to answer polling questions that do not include all four viable candidates, then selecting the candidate you truly would prefer to see elected, even if you might vote for the "lesser of two evils" in November if your preferred candidate is not polling well.

The Star Tribune has a responsibility to inform the electorate and should put pressure on the debate commission to include all candidates with a mathematical chance to win.

• • •

Millennial voters as well as early Generation Z voters don't place and have never placed nearly as much value on the traditional right-wing social ideals branded in many baby boomers. With 49 percent of independent voters giving their support to Trump it presents a problem — specifically for his chance of success. This being the case, Gary Johnson resonates with many younger voters, since he supplies the socially left and the fiscally right stances many young Republicans desire as well as many moderates. If Johnson were able to get his 15 percent of the polls to get on the debate stage and make a name for the Libertarians, it's highly likely he could pull a Ralph Nader, pull votes from Trump and give "Crooked Hillary" the win.

For me as a Libertarian, it would be a joy to see Johnson take office. But choosing between the two evils leaves Trump as many voters' first choice as well as my own. While I would vote rationally in this election if I could, I realize that many will vote their conscience and go with Johnson and consequently give Clinton her victory. It would be best for him to stay out of this election and come back in 2020. At that point, the Libertarian ideals might have the traction to put a third-party candidate in office.

• • •

Johnson undoubtedly made an unforced gaffe Thursday on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" television program by asking "what is Aleppo?" in response to a question about the war-torn Syrian city. Co-host Joe Scarborough was quick to skewer Johnson's mistake, indicating it "disqualified" him from the race. Immediately following the interview, the hashtag "#whatisaleppo" began trending on Twitter in millions of mocking posts.

I think it would be prudent for voters and the media to take a step back and consider whether Johnson is being held to a double standard. As confirmed recently by the FBI, his Democratic opponent, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, sent numerous e-mails containing classified information from an unsecured private server located in the basement of her private residence. An FBI report released on Sept. 2 indicates that Clinton claimed to be unaware that the "C" label affixed to a number of her messages indicated that the contents were classified.

Ignorance is certainly not a welcome virtue in candidates for the nation's highest office. But if voters and the media can overlook Clinton's glaring lack of knowledge of operational security procedures and still consider her a "qualified" candidate for the presidency, then surely Johnson's gaffe in one of hundreds of media appearances can likewise be forgiven.

• • •

It quotes Clinton as saying that she relied on the judgments of her staff not to send e-mails containing classified information to the private e-mail account.

One of the clear indications of a good leader is accepting personal responsibility for his or her action. Remember that President Harry Truman said "the buck stops here" — he was a truly great leader. In studying great leaders, they share at least two things in common: Most accept the blame for their actions no matter the outcome, and most live by a very high ethical standard.

So the question is how Clinton stacks up on these two critical standards. If you would look at business leaders who have failed their shareholders and their customers, they seem to fail on two counts: ethics and accountability. A good book to read on the subject is Fred Kiel's "Return on Character."

Clinton is being vetted in public because she has chosen to be a public person — her choice. On the other hand we have Trump, who has always operated in the private sector. In terms of accountability and ethics, he really cannot be vetted; anything we hear and know about him is, for the most part, anecdotal. So we have a choice of Clinton, with a clear history that indicates that she will not be a good leader, or Trump, someone we really know nothing about in terms of ethics and accountability. I hope that anyone reading this will have as hard a time as I will in casting my vote in November.

• • •

For weeks we've been treated to "solutions" to Clinton's potential presidential conflict of interest when it comes to donations to the Clinton Foundation. That's in spite of there being no evidence that she gave donors any preferential treatment as secretary of state. Maybe more access; no preferential treatment.

There is, on the other hand, plenty of evidence that the Clinton Foundation does very good work around the world.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump and his family preside over a business empire that stands to benefit immensely from his presidential policy decisions should he be elected, and we do have evidence that his ties to Russia, whether direct or through his former campaign chair, have actually resulted in preferential treatment for Russia in the form of a more subdued Republican platform plank regarding U.S.-Russian relations.

And yet nobody seems to be suggesting that Trump and family need to divest themselves of their for-profit business activities, about which the evidence strongly suggests they've done more harm than good to many of their customers, suppliers and contractors.

I thought we were supposed to be suffering from a liberal media. What gives?

With a cadre of high-ranking military officers salivating over the prospects of a substantial increase in the military budget, Trump's patronizing proposals have succeeded in getting their endorsement. He assures us that the $90 billion a year in extra money for military spending will derive from tightening tax loopholes, omitting government waste and other ethereal proposals that have been circling around us for years.

Does multibillionaire Trump expect that we taxpaying "suckers" will underwrite the added cost of his military visions? If he is unwilling to share his current tax return "until it is audited by the IRS," why won't he show us his returns from previous years? Perhaps it is because his current and past tax contributions reveal a disturbing lack of responsibility for our public expenditures.

• • •

I hope that the 88 military generals and admirals that Trump touted as his supporters will, as one chorus, endorse their candidate's position on stealing the resources of another nation as the "spoils" of an invasion Trump claims to have opposed. Surely those military experts agree that such a move would insure the safety of American forces and the future cooperation of our allies?

Right?