To the Editors of The Crimson:

"Contrary to what many along the American political spectrum have argued, voters do face a distinct choice on Election Day 1976," read Thursday's Crimson editorial (October 28). I beg to differ. Strongly. At best the choice can be called ambiguous, and for many the vote for Carter will be a reluctant one.

By now it would bore readers to list the discrepancies of Carter's statements during the campaign, and the dearth of specific proposals. He has not presented a comprehensive program, nor can one be comfortably pieced together from stray comments and rhetoric. But most importantly, we do not have a clear Carter philosophy. His record since his Georgia days does not reflect a consistent philosophy, but political opportunism. He now denies his support for George Wallace in 1972. The size of his defense cut has shrunk. His stand on the Panama Canal is a reaction to the conservative opinion Reagan mobilized and not a part of a coherent foreign policy. Yugoslavia, busing, abortion... From the first, the Carter campaign was based not on a positive program, but on a negative appeal to people disillusioned with Washington politics and its seeming corruption: he did not promise reform, but change.

His record as governor of Georgia is suspect; his program for the nation is vague and inconsistent; he did not develop a philosophy but a gimmick. The Crimson cites Jimmy Carter for "elusiveness," yet proclaims that his program "remains, fundamentally, a plan devised in the tradition of the Democratic Party." No. He has given us not a plan, but rhetoric in the best tradition of the Democratic Party. No one ever promised us unemployment, economic recession, peace with dishonor, a polluted environment, ad nauseam. I would not expect Jimmy Carter to do so. But it remains to be seen what he proposes to do about our problems, and what philosophy would shape his proposals.

With all this behind me, I will not vote for Ford. A Republican Administration would assure us of a continuing conservative trend in domestic and foreign policies, attitudes towards business, defense, and Supreme Court appointments.

The end of unlimited resources and growth will reshape society, and it remains to be seen if we can adapt the political structure to that society.

There is no clear choice. Most Americans will not vote, and the remaining will decide between an inadequate Ford and an enigmatic Carter. Perhaps two to five per cent will vote for Eugene McCarthy, and ironically they may decide the election. I will vote for McCarthy, not in the hope he will win, or foil a Carter victory, but in the hope he will articulate the voice of the progressive left not heard since the primaries. He is the one candidate who addresses himself to the structure of American society, and how it might be reformed. He talks of poverty, not simply welfare; reduction of the nuclear arms stockpile, not limits on production and technology; imposing controls on the amount of resources and energy wasted by the automobile industry (by restricting size), rather than waiting for energy crises.

The Crimson characterized McCarthy's candidacy as "indulgent." No, he is not tilting at windmills. Neither major candidate has discussed needed structural changes. McCarthy represents the collective voice of those dissatisfied with the failure of the two parties to consider substantive reform. His candidacy cannot hope to win, but it can hope to prompt a discussion of that reform, either within the old parties, or in the form of a stronger independent party in 1980.

There is a choice, but one must consider more than rhetoric.