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.
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.