Resize 
Related
I have only been eligible to vote for a couple of elections, so my memory of political times past is limited, at best.
However, I've seen a trend in the last few years that is disturbing, and it seems to be more the rule than the exception. In this election year as in the last two at least, it seems that we are left with little to be excited about politically, no matter how we vote. No offense to Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) or Barack Obama (D-Ill.), but for those of us who do not necessarily vote along either party's lines, we are being forced to vote for the lesser of two evils.
Obviously, the word "force" is a bit strong. You can vote for Libertarian candidate Bob Barr if you like. If McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden don't offer enough diversity for your tastes, you can vote for Green Party candidate Cynthia Ann McKinney, an African-American woman, and her running mate Rosa Clemente, a Hispanic woman. If you like your candidates aged to perfection, forget McCain -- Ralph Nader is running again. Well, he's more likely walking this time ... slowly. Nader's got a full two years on the Republican candidate. He's a spry 74.
Unfortunately, as we all know, a vote for one of these other candidates is referred to as a "wasted vote." To vote for one of these candidates, each of whom has a legitimate background and is currently out on the campaign trail working every bit as hard as Obama or McCain, is to "throw away" your vote. No matter how you slice it, this is unfortunate. Nowhere in the Constitution does it outline that this country should be a de facto two-party state. To vote for one of two main candidates is to throw your approval behind their entire platform -- you can't pick and choose your issues.
The main problem with the two-party system in this day and age, as I see it, is the politicization and polarization of issues that are too complicated to simply dichotomize. For example, we all know the Republican Party is considered "pro-life," while the Democratic Party is "pro-choice." Because of our two-party system, the powers that be make it seem that we have to choose yes or no, one or the other, with no in between. But to completely legalize abortion is perhaps to make it yet another birth control practice, while to completely outlaw it is to prevent some people with legitimate reasons (incest, rape, etc.) from being able to access a procedure that they deserve to have available. There's a right answer in the abortion question, from a legislation standpoint, and it definitely does not lie at either extreme.
Leave a comment 4 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
By submitting your comment, you agree that it will not:
Comments that violate these guidelines will be moderated by the public editor and will then be buried in the comments section.
Check out FairVote: The Center for Voting and Democracy for information about the more competitive and representative spoiler-free and gerrymander-proof electoral systems used in most of the world's multi-party democracies.
Reply to this Top
The fundamental glitch of all democracies is the dissemination of information. The real reason why our system of government has devolved into a two party system is the power of each party to command the attention of the masses. Money and air time are tipped heavially in favor of either red or blue, and with a third party's limited fan base and support they can not muster the type of wide spread acknowledgment of their ideas. A typical American is already ignorant and ill-informed about even two parties, do you want to offer them more options? On a National scale with such a big country, a two party system does create an ideal structure for as close to a majority elect as can be (obviously not because of the electoral college). If you want to get into multiple parties and specific values and issues, I would suggest looking at your local elections and state elections. Third party candidates have a greater chance at appealing to and being recognized in these smaller settings. Like it or not, more people fall into the stereotypical categories of Republican and Democrat then you'd think when extrapolated across the entire country. Pick a side people, get off the fence, it's not that hard and deep down you know which party you belong to.
Reply to this Top
Yeah...Ralph Nader for president. A delusional meglomaniac so divorced from reality that he probably thinks he has a chance this November. Take your meds Ralph...and see you in 2012!
Reply to this Top
There are some institutions held dear by Canadians: the old age pension, unemployment insurance, and universal medical care among them. And it will be news to many that not one of these obligations to Canadians was initiated by a governing political party. It was the work instead, of what are now called “fringe” parties. Fortunately, back when coffee was 10 cents if you had it, enough of our parents and grandparents hung their hopes and votes on eccentric candidates that put their neighbour’s interests ahead of their party’s. And from that, a tiny minority of MP’s set in motion the programs that contribute to the compassionate fabric of Canadian society. On October 14th, it will be our turn to reintroduce into parliament the notion that government exists to serve, and to elect members that will earnestly work to protect the pensions, the healthcare, and the livelihoods of other than themselves. Contrary to what so called strategists and political “pundits” may spout… no vote is wasted on a candidate that will promote justice, fairness, and well being for our families and our neighbours – no matter how small their chance of forming a government, nor how small their party. America should try it.
Reply to this Top