The most important word in the English language, though it is seemingly neglected quite often, especially in American politics, is [i]choice[/i]. Without choice, freedom is meaningless; and without freedom, life's meaning matters little. With freedom comes responsibility and accountability, choice permits freedom and allows for greater individual empowerment. The underlying principle of choice is that the more options available, the greater freedom is granted through choice. Why then is there such a dichotomy in much of our politics?
The land of the free would seemingly be a land of choice, a land full of options. But the majority see only two options for every situation. Rather than search for numerous options in order to make a choice, many settle for either one side of an issue or the other, as though there are only two sides to every story. In the context of politics, this mentality of one side against the other, with little room for dissent from other angles (other options), is seen in our Presidential elections. It is the Democrat against the Republican, and most who select a particular candidate do so as much in opposition of the other side as in support of the candidate of their choosing. If you're a Democrat, your mentality is likely 'anyone is better than Bush,' whereas the Republicans feel that anyone that is not a Democrat is best. This contempt for the opposing party would be perfectly valid, if the two parties were the only options. Rather than so much as entertaining the idea of another option, most are content to wage these political wars based not on whose ideas are the best, but on whose are the least worst. At election time, a great many voters will choose 'the lesser of two evils' rather than permitting themselves to make the choice to vote their true will. Republicans and Democrats are not the only options we have, and by voting solely along those lines we resign ourselves to a lack of choice- it sends the message that we do not need choice. To overcome the hindrance of neglecting our choices, we must first make the choice to preserve our options. By voting for a third party candidate, we can set the path for a shift in the mentality of American politics. Don't neglect your options, and don't desert your true freedom- make [b]choice[/b] the most important word in your vocabulary.
Reply to: AutumnSnow
Right now a third party vote is mostly a protest vote, or at the most a vote for a debate invitation. A shift to proportional representation would most likely happen if one of the major parties managed to get an enormous majority over the other one, and the smaller party would adopt it as a plank, and keep that idea when they regrew.
Yeah, that dreaded "C Word" seems to be a profanity in politics...
posted by: mblog (reply)
post date: 03.28.04 (5:33 pm)
There's a lot more to the issues than polar opposites. Many of the most divisive issues have a middle ground. Even on things like abortion, plenty of people have an answer somewhere in the middle.
The problem with adding more candidates is that we have a plurality based system. There is nothing in or Constitution that mandates such elections, but unless things change, voting for a third party is dangerous. We need to be able to rank our ballot choices so there can be a built in run off. That way, if the top candidate does not get a majority of votes, it can be determined who the majority of voters supports among the top candidates. But with the current system, it's possible for a person to win with a minority of the vote when the majority of voters would have preferred a specific individual instead.
If that goes away, nobody would fear "wasting" a vote on a third party candidate.
"Tragically, a nation that was created by intellectuals and visionaries has now been completely taken over by venal corporate gangsters, delusional Christian fruitcakes and hopelessly shallow Texas shit-kickers." -Tom Robbins
