You know it's only a few weeks until Election Day when every other ad you see on television is related to someone's campaign -- whether actually "approved" by a specific candidate or it's simply an ad bashing a particular candidate with the disclaimer that the Republican or the Democratic party paid for the content of the ad. I have on occasion given money to the Illinois Green Party, but am not a member of any political party and consider myself a liberal independent. Last election I found myself basically voting Democrat (only if I knew enough about the candidate to support them) but in many cases I lamented the lack of real choice on the ballot.
There is an episode of The Simpsons, first broadcast in 1996, where two space aliens (Kang and Kodos) kidnap Bill Clinton and Bob Dole just before election night and pose as the two candidates. The day before the election it is revealed that they are actually aliens. Little Lisa Simpson urges citizens to vote for Ross Perot in order to avoid the country being led by evil aliens. One of the aliens cackles. "You can't do that!" he proclaims. "It's a two party system!" Hilarious, yes, but sadly reflective of the truth -- or at least the truth as it is perceived by many.
Take the Illinois gubernatorial race. Rod Blagojevich and Judy Barr Topinka are perpetually bashing one another. Polls show that Illinois voters are not particularly jazzed about either candidate. This week on ABC they have arranged both Blagojevich and Topinka to ..speak out on the issues... But notice that they only invited the candidates from the two "major" parties. Hello! There is a third candidate on the ballot this year! The Green Party's Rich Whitney fought like mad to be included on the ballot, getting far more signatures than were actually needed and taking it in stride when the Democrats challenged his petition. (All of the objections were thrown out, and as previously stated Illinoisans can find him on the ballot on Election day.)
Whitney currently has about seven percent of the vote in the polls. Considering how jaded voters are with the two "major" candidates, one would think that Illinois would be ready for a change -- but in part because major news outlets are not giving him much press (ABC News has finally decided to give him a little bit of air time on Wednesday night's "Facing the Issues" while Blagojevich and Topinka get to square off all five nights this week), many Illinois voters don't even know there's a third candidate! When they talk about Blagojevich or Topinka, they speak of his or her "opponent," singular, as if there were no other person in the race. If only the Green Party had the available funds that the Democratic and Republican parties did. Of course, Whitney would do something insane like only talk about the issues in his campaign ads instead of bashing his two (arguably bashable) opponents. Voters might not be used to something like that. Actually, it is more likely that they would simply ignore him since he's from a "minor" party. Same with a candidate from any "other" party, or an independant candidate. It's too much work to read up on a particular candidate; so much easier to simply vote Democrat or Republican all the way down, disregarding anyone who falls outside party lines, even if, had you taken the time to research it, they actually agree with you on the issues you care about more than the two "major" candidates.
In Illinois alone, there is another Green running in the 11th district, an Independent in the 8th, a Libertarian running the 2nd and another third party in the 18th. A candidate from the Socialist Equality Party is running for Illinois State Senate. In the House of Representatives there is currently an Independent congressman from the state of Vermont. Under the current paradigm where the majority of Illinoisans (and indeed Americans) feel the need to support the two "major" parties, lest they "throw their vote away" by voting for a third party, it is aggravating that few people realize the true breadth of choices. Last I heard, we were supposed to be able to vote for whoever we want on the ballot... including independents or those from "other parties."
I have a well-intentioned friend who fervently believes that the Democrats retaking Congress will be the answer to this country's woes. While I agree that few people could screw up the country much more than the Republican majority has been doing, I cannot unequivocally state that a Democratic majority is anything like a political panacea. (Let's face it, some of the Dems aren't exactly the sharpest knives in the drawer, either, and -- dare I say it? -- a few Republicans actually know what they're doing.) Democrats and Republicans are more alike than they'd have us believe. The only reason I choose Democrats over Republicans when there is no other option is that I am looking for the lesser of two evils.
And that right there is the problem. One of the slogan's on a "minor" party website says, "Don't like the way this country is heading? Don't vote for the two parties we have to blame for it!" So long as we perceive voting for a third party candidate as "throwing our vote away," we will be perpetually stuck in this two-party paradigm. Why be content with settling for the proverbial lesser of two evils when there are plenty of viable options?
P.S. For those who are going to go Bruce Hornsby on me and say, "That's just the way it is," I say to you, it doesn't have to be this way.
Back to Soapbox Index
