We should get rid of obstacles to third-party political success
The American political system is another area where government has imposed a “choice” upon us — and not because consumers (voters) have demanded it, or because having only two parties makes America a better place.
Instead, this is a two-party country because Republican and Democratic politicians have used the force of government to make it that way. Normally, a two-party system would be fine with me. But unless the system makes it possible for a third party to replace one of the two older parties, there’s no reason for the older parties to be responsive to what people want. Instead, we voters are given a “choice” between candidates who are only offering slight variations of the same proposal. Or, going by the “South Park” example, you get to choose between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.
Thanks to bills such as the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation, referred to by its opponents as the “Incumbent Protection Act,” potential contributors are allowed to give a candidate up to $2,000. If you’re a politician who’s already in power, that’s great for you — because with all the political favors that you can deal out, you can create a much wider base of people from whom to collect $2,000.
But if you’re a third-party politician, you’re not in the position to be able to deal out political favors — and thus, you have to raise $2,000 one person at a time. This is especially hard to do when potential donors realize that most third-party candidates have no chance to win. Why throw $2,000 down the drain for principle?
Republicans and Democrats pass ballot-access laws that allow them to get on the ballot without spending much money or time. But they make it so that third-party candidates face enormous obstacles just to get on the ballot. Even if third-party candidates overcome these obstacles, they normally have to spend a good deal of time and money to do so, which is time and money that could have been spent getting their message out to voters. This is also extra time and money that their Republican and Democratic opponents do not have to spend.
In addition, candidates who “qualify” are able to receive matching campaign funds to fuel their campaign. Of course, it’s usually the major party candidates who qualify for enough money to make any kind of difference. As a Libertarian, I wouldn’t want my candidate to accept matching campaign funds, but the fact that other candidates are able to use tax dollars to supplement their campaigns is discouraging.
The debates are yet another hurdle for third-party presidential candidates. The “debates” are run by a commission made up entirely of Democrats and Republicans. I don’t really need to explain this one — I’ll just say that, surprisingly, the only people who usually get into the debates are from one of these parties.
The media realize that because of all these obstacles, third-party candidates have no chance to win major elections and don’t even have a chance to affect the outcome of the race in most cases.
This creates a circular problem. Because these candidates have no chance to win, the media doesn’t cover them. Because the media doesn’t cover them, they aren’t able to get their campaign messages out to voters effectively. Because they aren’t able to get their message out, they have no chance to win — which, again, means no media coverage. And because third-party candidates usually can’t win or even influence elections, many potential third-party voters consider votes for them to be wasted.
Think back to the last election. How many people did you hear say they voted for George W. Bush, not because they happened to like Bush, but because he was the “lesser of two evils”? And how many said the same about John Kerry? If we ever want to stop choosing between the “lesser of two evils,” and instead choose someone who we believe represents us and shares our beliefs, then we need to allow more than two parties into the system. It’s time to do away with campaign finance limits, ballot-access hurdles, campaign subsidies to politically connected candidates and debates that exclude anyone willing to offer a real alternative to the two big-government parties.
If you’re interested in learning more about political parties, especially third-party politics, there is going to be a forum at 7 p.m. Tuesday in 116 Murphey Hall. Former Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik will be one of the speakers, and the forum will be moderated by political science Professor James Stimson.
Contact Philip Hensley at http://philiphensleyjr.blogspot.com.
