4
3
3
Having reached the legal voting age, I will be eligible to vote in this year's presidential election for the first time in my life. After ages of watching debates and giving my two cents on the issues to anyone who would listen, my years as a politically savvy adolescent have led up to the chance to contribute directly to the democratic process. Indeed, it should be an exciting occasion, but my enthusiasm is dampened by the knowledge that as long as America is caught in a cycle of two-party tyranny, my vote is essentially meaningless.
Every election cycle, voters are sent a clear message from
the two major parties that if their views don't fit into neat little "liberal"
or "conservative" boxes, they aren't worthy of representation. If you're not
one of us, they're told, you're nobody.
Were it merely a product of
popular opinion, the two party system wouldn't really be worth complaining
about, but the fact is that the only reason the two parties consistently win is
that they make the rules. Is it any coincidence that the people who write
election laws are also the ones who win elections? Is it far-fetched to think
that maybe the establishment candidate who cruises onto the ballot while his
third-party opponent is bombarded with a massive petition quota isn't playing
on an even field?
Even if a third-party candidate
manages to gain ballot access (a miraculous feat in many states), getting sued off the ballot is a common
occurrence. Legal challenges, which are often arbitrary but consistently waste time
and money, are a popular way for Democratic and Republican candidates to knock
their opponents out of the race.
Even the Commission on
Presidential Debates identifies itself as a bipartisan
entity, thus making open debates virtually impossible. Their eligibility
requirements rule out all but the most high-profile candidates, even though
national polls have repeatedly shown that voters overwhelmingly want to hear
from all candidates.
Meanwhile, media bias guarantees
an additional stumbling block. The mainstream media will readily ignore the
need to provide crucial information in favor of stories that are more likely to
sell.
Between time-consuming ballot
access requirements, resource-draining legal battles, and campaign finance laws
that blatantly favor the political establishment, third-party candidates are weighed
down so that the people in power stay in power. The result is a less
representative government, countless new ideas and perspectives shut out of the
debate, important issues being ignored, and millions of voters who are forced
to choose between the lesser of two evils.
You don't have to look far to
see the failings of our political system: a mounting deficit, soaring
unemployment, a prolonged addiction to imported oil, single-digit Congressional
approval ratings, etc. Is it unreasonable to think that the solutions to these
problems are the ones being suppressed? Think of the potential, the talent and
the leadership that we're shutting out by putting up a "do not enter" sign to
anyone who doesn't fit into a two-party pigeonhole.
A common argument is that third-party
candidates don't get votes because people don't like them. The reality is that
the candidates are so suppressed by a process that endorses their defeat, they
can't even compete. In fact, %80 of Americans are unsatisfied with the
two-party system. Even the Supreme Court has ruled, without legisative avail, against the laws that give them
an unfair advantage.
Another claim is that
third-party candidates are "spoilers"; that they take votes away from more "deserving"
candidates. However, the idea that anyone is entitled to votes contradicts the
very idea of free elections. Not to mention, third-party candidates are the
only ones advocating the electoral reforms that would prevent "spoiler"
scenarios from happening.
The bottom line: we're well overdue for a change. It might
not happen in 2012, but until it does, the idea of fair elections that our
founding fathers envisioned will be obscured by politicians who put power
before democracy.
