Opinion: Undecided voters should look beyond the candidates to ‘implications of party’

To the editor: To say the 2016 election offers a choice between the lesser of two evils is to suggest that the candidates are equally flawed, albeit in different ways. They are not.

One has shown bad judgment, certainly, but boasts a laudable résumé in public service, demonstrates a thorough understanding of all the issues, and exhibits consistency in her campaign messaging.

( “What undecided voters are waiting for,” Opinion, Sept. 7 and “Voters are struggling to commit,” Sept. 8)

The other has voiced opinions on both sides of most issues, and according to at least one respected source, speaks the truth only a small percentage of the time.

More troubling, however, is the GOP candidate’s petulant and vindictive nature.

Doyle McManus cites an undecided voter who hopes Donald Trump might “get his personality under control.” She refers to a man who famously said, “When I look at myself in the first grade and I look at myself now, I’m basically the same. The temperament is not that different.” Sadly and frighteningly, that statement rings irrefutably true.

Mike Diehl, Glendale

::

To the editor: Undecided voters shouldn’t focus solely on the presidential candidates’ personalities. There are also the implications of a victory by the candidate’s political party.

My take: if the GOP wins, it would hold not only the White House, but almost certainly the House of Representatives. A presidential victory would help Republicans retain control of the Senate as well. And their nominee for Supreme Court justice would tilt the court to the right once again.

Potentially all branches of government under one party, one ideology. An outcome that I think undecided voters should definitely worry about.

And then imagine an authoritarian personality as commander-in-chief operating virtually free of checks and balances.

Howard Hurlbut, Redlands

::

To the editor: Good article, but no one one seems to be talking about the 800-pound elephant in the room: do people really want to vote for a woman? Beyond that, I agree that Hillary Clinton is not warm and fuzzy, but other than helping her win the election, how important is that going to be in dealing with issues in the Middle East, or meeting with the foul-mouthed president of the Philippines?

Judi Jones, San Pedro

::

To the editor: Trump may the best ever at articulating concerns that resonate with Americans. He is possibly the worst to address those concerns. I am troubled with Trump’s ego, temperament and business conduct. He can create international division and financial crisis.

Clinton generates concern regarding Benghazi and emails but her experience and history of serving is a more-than-sufficient counterbalance.

Sid Pelston, Beverly Hills

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook