The next president will likely either be Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or John McCain. Isn't it nice to finally have a choice? A middle-aged black man, an older white woman, and an even older white man. Liberals and conservatives. Left and right. Finally, we have some genuine differences in policy to debate. Right?

Of course not.

First, ignore skin color, gender, and age. They mean nothing. Second, discount the rhetoric. We all know the value of a politician's word. Instead, look to their actions. What we have here is a race among three senators. So let's compare their voting record.

I got the voting records of each of the three amigos from Project Vote Smart (vote-smart .org), which maintains a collection of key votes going back to 1995. McCain has cast 774 votes since 1995, Clinton 507 since 2001, and Obama 392 since 2005.

Let's try to find out how often they voted the same way.

I'll describe the methods and the results but in the meantime, let your subconscious ponder this question: what numbers should you expect? If we are really being offered a choice, then McCain should disagree nearly 100 percent of the time with Obama and Clinton. But what about the two Democrats? Surely they have some common ground. Maybe they disagree half the time. Think of a person with whom you disagree politically. What percent of the time would you say you disagree? Half the time? Nearly all the time?

Here's how I calculated everything. Each vote is a Yay, a Nay, or a No-Vote. An important question is: what should a No-Vote count as? Suppose McCain abstained from a vote that both Obama and Clinton favored. Does that mean McCain opposed it or tacitly favored it?

Consider how you vote in an election. If you vote for Ron Paul but John McCain wins, then you clearly voted against McCain, and you have the moral right to object to McCain's leadership. But if you sat at home and didn't vote for anybody, then, like most Americans, you basically don't care, and you are tacitly approving whoever emerges as victor.

Using that logic, I count a non-vote as a tacit agreement. If a senator thought a particular bill was unconstitutional, unholy, or just plain un-American, he or she could and should have voted against it. That's their job—it's basically their only duty. If they don't vote against it, they are essentially for it. Similarly, if a senator thought a particular bill was good, but failed to vote for it, then they are essentially against it. For example, a bill that would do good things but happens to be unconstitutional should be actively voted against, each and every time. To abstain from voting in such an instance is a dereliction of duty.

To the results. Let's start with McCain-Obama. So what does your subconscious think the portion of agreement should be between these two? Maybe they should agree 2 percent of the time? 3? 5?

McCain and Obama had 248 overlapping votes, that is, bills on which each voted. Out of those 248, they agreed, either tacitly or directly, a whopping 121 times. That's just under fifty percent.

McCain and Clinton were similar, agreeing 202 times out 361, for a little more than fifty percent.

And Obama vs. Clinton? The two Democrats agreed on 240 out of 248 bills. That's a 97 percent agreement.

So where is our variety? Where is our real debate? The two Democrats are virtually identical, and the Republican agrees with them more than he disagrees.

The Three Amigos was a 1986 comedy in which Steve Martin, Chevy Chase, and Martin Short play three actors asked to reprise their roles as heroes and defenders, only they don't realize until it is too late that they are fighting a real enemy. Their catchphrase was:

Amigo 1: Wherever there is injustice, you will find us.
Amigo 2: Wherever there is suffering, we'll be there.
Amigo 3: Wherever liberty is threatened, you will find...
All together: The Three Amigos!

The funny thing about the catchphrase is it makes it sound as if the three amigos are responsible for the injustice, suffering, and threatened liberties. Of course, in real life, it's not so funny anymore.

Especially now that we have no real choice left.