Playing the role of jackass.

I go through this every primary election.

The Libertarians often say that America's two-party system gives voters only one more choice than Saddam Hussein gave Iraqi voters. Well, here in my district, choosing to vote in the Libertarian primary gives a voter the same number of choices that Saddam gave voters, or less.

I'll vote mostly Libertarian in the general election, but I've asked Libertarians far and wide what is to be gained by voting the Libertarian ballot in the primaries, when there are no contested races on it (other than a couple of initiatives, which will also be on the other parties' ballots). Nobody can give me a good answer.

Frank Gilmour takes a weak stab at it, saying it's a way to express our dissatisfaction. But that strikes me as more of an emotional argument than a rational one. The opportunity to vote for Gilmour will still be there in the general election. I can express my dissatisfaction then.

So I'll vote in one of the other primaries. The only question is which one? While there are more choices per contested race on the Republican ballot in my district, there are more contested races on the Democrat one.

I can only vote for one candidate per race, so I guess I'll vote in the Democrat primary. I do this even though I want desperately to vote against the anti-equal-protection (and not just in marriage matters, but also in adoption matters), anti-alternative-energy, pro-enslavement-to-foreign-oil-companies Jim Talent. It is virtually a foregone conclusion that he will win the primary, however, with or without my vote.

That can probably be said of the equally awful Claire McCaskill on the Jackass side, too. But there are other races there.

Get on the stick, Libertarians, so I don't have to do this again in '08. Put up more freakin' candidates. Give us a choice.