A great democracy offers citizens sharp political choices. That's what gives political freedom meaning. With two-party control of America's political system, political options and discourse are stifled. We badly need more visible third-parties that can fully participate and reach the public with information about their platforms and candidates. In a nation that so worships competition it is hypocritical that there is so little political competition.
In truth, the Democratic-Republican partnership opposes competition. They have convinced Americans that votes for third party candidates are "wasted." Yet the biggest wasted vote is for a Democrat or Republican that is almost certain to win or lose, and takes your vote for granted. This year, even in the face of enormous public dissatisfaction with the two major parties, and a widespread belief that both are hopelessly corrupted by big money from corporate and other special interests, too many voters sheepishly picked from column D or R, even for sure winners or losers.
In this remarkable year of attention to many hot issues, especially political corruption and the Iraq war, voter turnout was just over 40 percent, no better than the previous midterm election. One valid view of why 60 percent of eligible voters did not vote is that they saw little difference between the two major parties and, therefore, that their votes do not matter. It's "they're all a bunch of crooks and liars" belief, bolstered this year with so much evidence of crooks in congress and liars in the Bush administration. Where supporters of Republicans or Democrats see different positions on issues, cynical citizens see nothing but campaign propaganda and civic distraction through divisive issues. So they do not vote their conscience or for lesser-evil candidates. Most have too little information about third party candidates to vote for them.
The untold statistical story is that a minor party could achieve political victory if half of the huge block of nonvoters chose its candidates, because major party winners typically have just a little more than half of the smaller voting block.
The Democratic and Republican Parties take no chances. They have used their muscle to keep third party candidates out of public campaign venues, notably televised debates, and to create rules that make it difficult fort them to get on ballots. As Tom Knapp correctly observed: "Major party candidates are cowards. They don't want to take stands that might cost them votes, but they don't want to be publicly outed as the walking blobs of Silly Putty� they are, either. So, they erect difficult ballot access barriers to keep third party candidates out altogether, and when that fails they collude with their fellow Silly Puttians to, as best possible, exclude their third party opponents from the public discussion."
The two-party duopoly prefers lesser-evil voters, people considered as independents, moderates or swing voters that can be influenced by aggressive and generally misleading advertising to choose the least worse Republican or Democratic candidates. Nor do the two majors really want a large voter turnout across the entire spectrum of political views. They prefer to have well defined niche categories of voters that they can target.
Here is a wonderful perspective about third parties by Rick Gaber: "They give the otherwise ignored, used, abused, betrayed, disgusted, disappointed, frustrated, victimized, insulted, and/or outraged voter a chance to cast a vote without feeling dirty afterwards, a reason to go to the polls AT ALL in the first place, and maybe even to come out of the voting booth feeling GREAT!"
In contrast to lesser-evil voters � third party voters proudly vote their conscience. They know that the odds are totally against their choices winning. Yet they do not stay home. They are true believers in American democracy. Their votes are strong messages. They are more strategic voters with long term hopefulness about political reform, as compared to tactical lesser-evil voters hoping against reality that when the two-party pendulum swings to the other side something really good happens.
The 2006 Elections
The 2006 midterm elections showed the importance of votes for third party candidates who keep fighting for a place in the American political system, despite being intentionally disadvantaged by very little money and media coverage.
Consider the Democratic majority in the Senate. Votes for third party candidates in three states were critical. Much media attention went to Democrat Jim Webb's win in Virginia by a relatively small number of votes, less than 9,000. As always, the media drummed up business by creating visions of a tight race between the two major party candidates, and ignored the third party candidate Gail Parker of the Independent Grassroots Party. As an independent fiscal conservative she received over three times the number of votes that gave Webb the victory over Republican George Allen. If just over one-third of those conservative voters had voted for Allen, the Democrats would not have a Senate majority. As elsewhere, some conservative voters rebelled against the Republican Party.
The Montana senate race was also featured. Democrat Jim Tester won over Republican Conrad Burns with less than a 3,000 vote margin. The Libertarian Party candidate, Stan Jones, received over three times that margin. So, if about one-third of those voters had gone Republican, the Democrats would not have a Senate Majority. Generally, Libertarian candidates take votes away from Republicans, and certainly that was justified this year.
In Missouri, Democrat Claire McCaskill beat Republican Jim Talent with a margin of about 46,000 votes. Frank Gilmour from the Libertarian Party received more than that. He and Lydia Lewis from the Progressive Party of Missouri received some 66,000 votes. So, if two-thirds of those voters had gone Republican, the Democrats would not have a Senate majority.
Frank Gilmour said this about his candidacy: "For far too long, our votes have been taken for granted; we either vote for the lesser of the two evils or we do not vote at all. My candidacy offers you a choice other than the two main parties. I'm not on the extreme left or the extreme right. I live in the middle, and I believe that most of you feel the same way. Our politicians give us partisan bickering instead of legitimate debate. If you vote for me it will send a message to the two main parties that enough is enough!"
Democrats owe a lot to those third party candidates and voters in those three states. Republicans deserved what they got.
These three cases, as many other races in previous years, demonstrate that votes for third party candidates are not "wasted." Nor should such candidates be falsely labeled as "spoilers." The implication is that they intentionally want to toss the race to one of the major party candidates. In truth, third party candidates believe in their mission to raise things neglected by the major parties. They can attract people that would not otherwise vote. They add integrity to our democracy. If anything, their current underdog status provides a constant reminder of just how unfair the political playing field is. They are not the problem. Our status quo political system is the problem, because two-party rule has "spoiled" our democracy.
Joel S. Hirschhorn is the author of Delusional Democracy - Fixing the Republic Without Overthrowing the Government (www.delusionaldemocracy.com). His current political writings have been greatly influenced by working as a senior staffer for the U.S. Congress and for the National Governors Association. He advocates a Second American Revolution, beginning with an Article V Convention to propose constitutional amendments.
This issue of campaign finance is probably the greatest long term problem that our nation faces today. People just don't "get it" when we explain how corporate and special interest money has actually "bought" our democracy. Unless you are funded by the Democrats or Republicans (and they are financed by the Corporacracy), the chances of winning a seat in congress or the Senate are practically nill. There is a simple solution and you touched on it. Deny Corporate and Special Interest money to finance politicians. I have one more article up my sleeve that I've been working on for days that I think I'll have ready before tomorrow. Maybe someday we will hit on just the right combination of words that will spur people to action. You would think that what you just wrote would convince most Americans. I don't know what it's going to take for people to realize that all of the problems we have been dealing with come back to this same problem...billion dollar campaigns financed by institutions that don't have America's best interests at heart. In fact, many contributions are not even coming from Americans! They are financing politicians for profit, not because they would do the best job for the country.
by
Timothy V. Gatto (348 articles, 177 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 575 comments)
on Monday, November 20, 2006 at 1:10:26 PM
They work in parliamentary systems but not in our system which relegates far too much power to the Presidency. Our consitutional system is not going to change. Third party activists are much better off working within one of the main political parties. As far as dealing with campaign finance and our "bought democracy", way too little attention is being paid to voter education as a solution. The money goes to ads and the ads only affect the uneducated.
by
Patrick Coony (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments)
on Monday, November 20, 2006 at 1:20:25 PM
then, in my opinion, you are giving up on ever truly rennovating our democracy, government and economy. There simply is no conceivable way that either of the major parties will ever take responsibility to fix what they have broken. There is no constitutional or structural reason why third parties cannot play a key role in improving things. To give up on third parties is to be defeatist and nihilistic.
by
Joel S. Hirschhorn (108 articles, 13 quicklinks, 43 diaries, 400 comments)
on Monday, November 20, 2006 at 2:53:56 PM
Joel has reiterated this main idea on several occasions, and I don't see how anyone with a few functional brain cells can honestly disagree.
I try to vote my conscience, I guess believing on some deep level that the Universe will ultimately respond when we all "come clean."
And if this presumption is false, then I guess on some even deeper level my inner being says, "Fuck this show--it's a pile of dogshit and why should anyone in their right mind lift a finger to make a difference anyway?"
I realize that's grist for a whole 'nother article, or perhaps several books, but it's the essence of how I see my voting choices. (The only other option I can imagine is that homo sapiens outgrows the need for "leaders," which we just might to in another two or three billion years.)
Thus I voted for Nader, I think twice, and I probably would have done the same had I lived in Floriduh, rather than Utarh.
In any event, I agree 100% with Joel that election reform is a top priority and that the two party system has been bogus since the get-go.
Ironically, however, the best ideas I've seen for voting reform come from deep within the Democratic Party--so deep, unfortunately, that they never see the light of day.
I wish the author had not used such a negative view of the effects of the Libertarian votes on the outcome of the election because I believe that it reinforces an incorrect stereotype that third party votes are negative ones, and plays into the hands of those who lack the vision and call Nader's two candidacies a reason for the defeat of Gore and Kerry, such utter nonsense, really, as if votes are obligations to any candidate, or as if those who voted Nader would have automatically voted Democrat, or voted at all.
It is my contention that the single most important issue facing America today is the myth of the two party system and the real allegiance of these parties to corporate monies.It is obvious, at least to me, that both parties are quite comfortable with this duopoly and will absolutely never consider the very real reforms necesary to end the stranglehold of money on elections.
The only way to reenfranchise those who are alienated from the process and to make very real and necesary reforms to the process is through the intercession of third party ideas and ideals on the system,and one that enumerates several important reasons for voting third party. I have often noted that the key to changing our corporatocracy back to a democracy lies with the 60% of the electorate that chooses to alienate herself from the process. Third Party politics gives that non voter a way to reinvest in the system, and by reinvesting changing that system for the better.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2386 comments)
on Tuesday, November 21, 2006 at 7:11:21 AM
As a Green since 1992, I would suggest that discussion begin to be focused on the structure of political entities and the form of their representation if this discussion is to move beyond campaign finance reform. I am an advocate of bioregionalism and that necessarily means that local politics be determined by local people. Water management, urban planning, mass transit, energy transition and growth decisions have long been dominated by the two parties and economic interest groups because third parties are handcuffed by the process AND the entities themselves are not designed to represwent a wide range of stakeholders. Real estate interests and home builders have an inordinate influence in urban land-use policies because there are no representatives sitting who represent urban water users, water specialists, water managers, agricultural users and environmental advocates. Adaptive governance mandates that all stakeholders have a proportionate role in working with others in resource management issues and land-use matters. This is not a revolutionary concept but is one that is utilized in many localities around the world.
Although I am not a Green, I am proud that Rich Whitney, Green Candidate for Governor in Illinois garnered 11% of the vote in the 2006.
Joel, you was speaking of funding, Whitney had $110,000 to the Republicans 3.6 million, but the Democrat Rod Blagojevich won not so much because he had more money, but the Republican couldn't connect with the people.
Ron
Founder/CEO, WeDemocrats.org
by
Ron (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 9 comments)
on Monday, January 8, 2007 at 6:42:10 PM
