The essay in The New Yorker"Undecided" by David Sedaris, really suggests that there is only one choice in an election. It makes the choice of just not voting or randomly choosing a name based on being a maverick seem like no choice at all. Sedaris likens the latter to choosing excrement with glass in it as an airline meal option rather than the chicken. He challenges voter apathy and says don't be undecided just to be different. Because you are really choosing the worst option of all this way. I agree with Sedaris in the sense that we haven't always had an active voting population. People choose someone last minute based on their personality or the style of their hair. It has not a lot to do with what the person actually stands for. Sedaris
