The same goes with the environment, at least in this country. We're familiar with Al Gore and his fanatical quest of the last several years to educate the public about global warming. It seems most every liberal has adopted the stance that global warming exists, humans have something to do with it, and we must change our ways in order to begin to address it. Meanwhile, conservatives cling to the notion that global warming either isn't happening at all, or that it's entirely cyclical and we just need to calm down about the whole issue. Both sides cite science to back up their claims. No matter what you believe, it's too bad that this issue has turned into one of the many ropes in the Democrat vs. Republican tug-o-war.
Shouldn't a person be able to believe in lower taxes, a beefed-up national defense system, and at the same time grant a woman the right to choose whether to bear a child in an undesirable situation? On the other hand, why should one have to espouse taxing the wealthy a higher percentage of their income in order to believe that we should be more environmentally conscious?
It's all too simple -- we need the ability to vote for candidates who more accurately represent who we are and what we believe. More candidates equal more choices. The problem of having to accept the bad with the good policies of particular candidates doesn't go away, but at least we get more choices. Perhaps one candidate supports smaller government, lower taxes, and more progressive environmental policies. Perhaps another wants to bring the troops home and legalize marijuana. No matter what, having more legitimate options means a government that is more representative of the population it serves.
I don't claim to have all the answers to the questions that have been posed. I just want to have hope that this country will eventually snap out of the "one-or-the-other" mindset. If we have more than two candidates who are considered to be legitimate contenders, then issues that should transcend partisan politics such as the environment, abortion and gun control will no longer be "us vs. them." It would be nice if enough of us could "waste" our votes this November to affect a future in which there will no longer be such a thing as a "wasted" vote ... but I'm not holding my breath.
Continue Reading: « Previous12
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.
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