Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - The case for third party alternatives in the US

Willravel · 12-20-2006, 07:56 PM

So often I hear the most intelligent, well spoken people speak of how to world is not black and white. It's all shades of gray. Why bother trying to fit everything into either one catagory or another? The oversimplification often puts what you're trying to catagorize into the wrong catagory. And yet in the self proclaimed Democracy of the US, we are far and away limited to a two party system. You're either with us, or your with them. It's our way or their way. Yes or no, up or down, black or white. I think we can all see it's not enough. There are not simply two opinions on anything, and both sides are not consistantly represented by either party. If I want our government to close down military bases in Asia and Europe, who can I vote for? Neither the Democrat or the Republicans are likely to take that action any time soon. Sure, if I have an opinion on homosexuality, abortion, etc., there's a place for me out there, but the two parties hardly cover the whole scope of politics, economics, and sociology.

So why not have more parties? Well, that's simple. "If you vote for a third party, you are preventing the lesser of two evils from overcoming the greater of two evils", is the answer I usually get. That's great for right now, at this very second, but it's like field dressing a wound to go back in to battle. It will hold you over for a bit, but it's never going to heal. It's important to stop and think what's good for the next 40 or 400 years every once in a while, or else we will inevitably spin out of control.

Every time we wait another year before trying to fix the two party system, another hurdle is placed in our way. Third parties are bogged down by ballot access that forces them to spend a great deal of money just to appear next to the Democrat and Republican name. Getting the signatures required to appear on a ballot, for example, can cost tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Not only that, but the "thrown away vote" mentality has been nurtured by the Democrats ("a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush") and Republicans alike in order to remain in power. Just last election, Cobb, the Green presidental candidate, and Badnarik, the Libertarian presidental candidate, were arrested in St. Louis for trying to participate in the debate. The part of that story that was less public was the fact that both men had an Order to Show Cause, which they intended to serve the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). This was a legal document that required the Commission on Presidential Debates to appear in court to show why the Green and Libertarian parties were not allowed to be in the debate.

The fact of the matter is: it's not a wasted vote. In 1992, Ross Perot won 19,743,821 (18.9% of the votes), which was well over half the 39,104,550 votes that went to George H. W. Bush (37.4% of the votes). That's an incredible number, and something of note when someone says to you that no one votes third party. About 20 million people voted third part in 1992. So why did only about 10 million vote third party in 1996? Why did only about 4 million vote third party in 2000? And, finally, why did only about 1.2 million vote third pary in 2004?! I'll tell you why: people actually believe that a third party vote is meaningles. After Nader's mericle in 1992, Democrats and Republicans turned their head on what was generally considered a non-threat to actually do some damage to the third parties. The wasted vote was created, and the numbers dropped off about 94% in 12 years. Can you imagine if the Democratic party lost 94% of it's vote? Can you imagine if the Republican party lost 94% of it's vote? Now, it simply squeaks by unnoticed by most.

I think it's time for people to wake up. Go and find a candidate that you agree with, not just a candidate that will keep that other guy out of office. We are choosing these people to represent us. The old motto was "Don't waster your vote", the new one is, "Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil."

A few questions to get the discussion going:

If it weren't a 'wasted' vote, would you vote for an alternative to the Democrats or Republicans? Which?

How many parties do you think a representative democratic republic like the US should have?

If you could start your own alternative party what would it be like, and how would you attract voters?

12-20-2006, 07:56 PM	#1 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	The case for third party alternatives in the US So often I hear the most intelligent, well spoken people speak of how to world is not black and white. It's all shades of gray. Why bother trying to fit everything into either one catagory or another? The oversimplification often puts what you're trying to catagorize into the wrong catagory. And yet in the self proclaimed Democracy of the US, we are far and away limited to a two party system. You're either with us, or your with them. It's our way or their way. Yes or no, up or down, black or white. I think we can all see it's not enough. There are not simply two opinions on anything, and both sides are not consistantly represented by either party. If I want our government to close down military bases in Asia and Europe, who can I vote for? Neither the Democrat or the Republicans are likely to take that action any time soon. Sure, if I have an opinion on homosexuality, abortion, etc., there's a place for me out there, but the two parties hardly cover the whole scope of politics, economics, and sociology. So why not have more parties? Well, that's simple. "If you vote for a third party, you are preventing the lesser of two evils from overcoming the greater of two evils", is the answer I usually get. That's great for right now, at this very second, but it's like field dressing a wound to go back in to battle. It will hold you over for a bit, but it's never going to heal. It's important to stop and think what's good for the next 40 or 400 years every once in a while, or else we will inevitably spin out of control. Every time we wait another year before trying to fix the two party system, another hurdle is placed in our way. Third parties are bogged down by ballot access that forces them to spend a great deal of money just to appear next to the Democrat and Republican name. Getting the signatures required to appear on a ballot, for example, can cost tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Not only that, but the "thrown away vote" mentality has been nurtured by the Democrats ("a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush") and Republicans alike in order to remain in power. Just last election, Cobb, the Green presidental candidate, and Badnarik, the Libertarian presidental candidate, were arrested in St. Louis for trying to participate in the debate. The part of that story that was less public was the fact that both men had an Order to Show Cause, which they intended to serve the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). This was a legal document that required the Commission on Presidential Debates to appear in court to show why the Green and Libertarian parties were not allowed to be in the debate. The fact of the matter is: it's not a wasted vote. In 1992, Ross Perot won 19,743,821 (18.9% of the votes), which was well over half the 39,104,550 votes that went to George H. W. Bush (37.4% of the votes). That's an incredible number, and something of note when someone says to you that no one votes third party. About 20 million people voted third part in 1992. So why did only about 10 million vote third party in 1996? Why did only about 4 million vote third party in 2000? And, finally, why did only about 1.2 million vote third pary in 2004?! I'll tell you why: people actually believe that a third party vote is meaningles. After Nader's mericle in 1992, Democrats and Republicans turned their head on what was generally considered a non-threat to actually do some damage to the third parties. The wasted vote was created, and the numbers dropped off about 94% in 12 years. Can you imagine if the Democratic party lost 94% of it's vote? Can you imagine if the Republican party lost 94% of it's vote? Now, it simply squeaks by unnoticed by most. I think it's time for people to wake up. Go and find a candidate that you agree with, not just a candidate that will keep that other guy out of office. We are choosing these people to represent us. The old motto was "Don't waster your vote", the new one is, "Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil." A few questions to get the discussion going: If it weren't a 'wasted' vote, would you vote for an alternative to the Democrats or Republicans? Which? How many parties do you think a representative democratic republic like the US should have? If you could start your own alternative party what would it be like, and how would you attract voters?