In the last post, we discussed why the “two party system” does not work in theory. One need look no further than the two major party candidates for this year’s Presidential election for evidence that the “two party system” does not work in practice, either. One, President Obama, has continually favored elite private interests over populist reforms, ignored or weakened constitutional restrictions/protections, and failed to meet his campaign promises (or outright contradicted them). The other, Mitt Romney, is almost absurdly out of touch with average Americans and probably worse than President Obama on most issues on which they do not agree (they agree on a number of them).
Unfortunately, this is the norm for American elections. For example, when ACED examined recent elections involving a prominent third candidate to show that the “spoiler effect” is mostly a myth used by the elite to oppressively discourage support of third party candidates, we found that voters clearly shifted from Democrat to Republican from one election to the next—and vice versa—when faced with a “worse” third alternative with a chance to win. In other words, their vote did not depend on the political views of the candidates, but on avoiding the worst possible outcome in the election. Over the last year, numerous experts and pundits who have advocated that voters should pick the “lesser evil” in November’s presidential election have made this point expressly clear.
Sometimes, a voter will rationally choose to vote for the “lesser evil.” If two candidates are satisfactory, substantially similar, and far preferable to another, third candidate, picking the lesser evil between the first two is probably a good strategy. Or, if there were necessarily only two candidates and people had no other opportunity to influence the political system, then taking the lesser evil would also make sense. Neither describes our reality, however. In our system, the lesser evil is folly for most Americans.
Mitt Romney and Barack Obama have much more in common with each other than they do with the average American – a fact reflected by their policies. While the two candidates are obviously not identical, if people did not view them through the distorting lens of the two party system (in which Republicans and Democrats occupy opposite ends of a spectrum), they would see them as offering similar regimes. And if people would open their eyes to alternative candidates, not only would they see some of them as radically different, but also much better for the majority of people in this country. At this point, voting for the lesser evil between Romney and Obama is nothing less than accepting a political system controlled by a very small group of financial elites who can afford to direct policies through campaign contributions, independent expenditures, lobbying, and promises of future benefits (such as high-paying jobs). It should go without saying that most people would benefit from rejecting such a system.
Rejecting it by voting for a third party candidate is a necessary step in reclaiming our democracy. Having repeatedly accepted the candidates that the major parties offer just because they are there, people have allowed our country to become exactly what the Founders hoped to avoid. Benjamin Franklin famously described the form of government created in the Constitution to a woman this way: “A republic, madam, if you can keep it.” This statement has been repeated so often because its message is so incredibly important – that the very nature of our republican form of government is fragile, and that we must work vigilantly to preserve it. Preserving the republic is our responsibility, no one else’s; and not because Benjamin Franklin said so, but because there can be no other way.
Americans have failed in this regard, ostensibly because they are too selfish and too lazy to put forth any serious effort toward creating a fair society – or even a democratic one. They do not accept any responsibility for doing so. Almost everyone I meet has someone or some group to blame for social ills, and probably some vague idea for a solution over which they have no control. However, merely saying, “If the President would only do this…” to solve a problem is as pointless as suggesting, “We should send a distress signal to deep space so a superior alien race will help us out.” If the President or a party is a problem, why not ask yourself how you can influence him or it?
The most obvious and easiest way to do is to vote for different leadership. If elites can count on people to elect one corporatist or the other, they have nothing to fear. They will continue to step on and steal from the average person because they can and it benefits them. They are the Democratic and Republican Parties as presently constituted. Their control of the parties is worth little if those parties lose control of the government, so vote them out. Even if that fails, a sustained threat from voters might at least affect their policies. Instead of the Democrats fighting for the money of corporations and financial elites, you could make them fight for your vote.
Comments are closed.