After the Last presidential election the answer that comes to light most often is, “yes!” The debacle in Florida is almost enough to make one believe that. Would we now be in a war if George W. Bush had not been elected? I don’t know, that’s something for other people to argue about and I have a different bone to pick with the electoral process.

Now as you may or may not know, the United States uses a process known as the electoral college to decide the leader of the nation. In simplififed terms, what this means is that every state has a set number of votes in the electoral college. This number is based on the population of the state, so states like Californica get a high number of votes, and states like North Dakota have a small number of votes. What happens to those votes is what the general election decides. Here’s where things get interesting. In most states, whoever wins the general election, recieves all of the electoral votes. There are a few states which divide the electoral votes between candidates depending on the outcome of the general election, but this is by far the exception and not the rule.

So, what’s wrong with this process? It’s served well for a while, but the US has degenerated into a two party system controlled by the Republican and Democrat ideologies. These two parties have the majority of votes in most elections and therefore control the whole process.

Now before I come accross as a raving lunatic, it is possible for a third party (or more) to make significant headway into the process, however the last time that happened was back when Ross Perot ran for president. He had the means to project his image and ideas accross the general populace and therefore made a significant impact on the votes available for both republicans and democrats. In fact, some republican pundits have stated quite widely that Perot was responsible for Bill Clinton’s presidential win.

Unfortunately, most of the third parties don’t have the funding to gain such wide spread exposure. In my opinion most American’s don’t even know that they have another choice. In the recent series of presidential debates, only the Replican and Democrat candidates were invited. This isn’t by accident. The Commision on Presidential Debates is nothing more than a marketing body for the Republicans and Democrats. Seeing as it’s an invitation only event, all of the questions are agreed to by both sides before the debate, and both parties sign contracts excluding them from participating in any other debate forum.

Since they are the major parties, and can’t participate in any other forum (contractually), any other party or debate featuring alteranative candidates bearly recieves mention, let alone prime time television coverage.

So there is a “not entirely subtle” machine in place to exclude any other alternatives. However, what concerns me the most is the psychological blocks to third party candidacies. In past elections people I know have expressed concern over the popular choices, but when it comes time to vote they want to vote for someone who can actually win. They don’t want to “waste” their vote. I’m affraid in the upcomming election that factor alone is going to rule out third party candidates. The current presidency has really polarized the nation. People either like George Bush or hate him. In this kind of environment the desire to remove one president will lead people to vote for the only other candidate they think can win: Kerry.

And so the system perpetuates itself. Regardless of who wins, the American people lose. I say this in the belief that neither Democrats or Republicans have the interests of the people at heart. Both parties have become accustomed to power; they like the taste of it, they like the recognition it brings, and they don’t want to share. How can I make such blanket generalizations? Well, making generalizations is easy enough. However given the fact that completely unnecessary bills like the Patriot Act (which is anything but patriotic) have passed, and corporations have been successful in lobbying congress for laws which erode civil liberties that citizens have enjoyed, how can I not see the system as broken?

Now I have to be honest, would even more political parties improve the system any? My honest reaction is no, but I still have hope. That’s more than I have for the Republicans and Democrats. Perhaps the young parties have more of an interest in the citizens of the country, rather than the intersts of corporations. Perhaps if there were more ideologies voiced in the Congress there would be more moderation in the bills, and maybe we could bring the focus back to doing what’s right for the citizens of the country.

To vote, or not to vote? I for one will vote. In fact I already have an absentee ballot at home. Very rarely have I voted for any Republican or Democratic candidate for any office, national or local. I have to believe that just one more vote for the alternatives is one step closer to changing the whole system. I still have hope, but I don’t know if there are enough free thinking people left to effect change. The day I stop voting, is the day I’ve lost all hope.

Please give some other parties a look. They may not be perfect, but are they really worse than what we have now?

Green
Libertarian
Reform