i received my sample ballot in the mail last week, and it led me to make some observations.
First, Tennessee voters may be surprised to find eight candidates for President of the United States on their ballot. Aside from the Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin tickets, it appears six mysterious independents are running. Except they're not all independents, and it's no mistake that they're not well known.
Let me revise and expand on the "independents":
- Chuck Baldwin, Darryl Castle - Constitution Party
- Bob Barr, Wayne Root - Libertarian Party
- Charles Jay, Thomas Knapp - Boston Tea Party
- Cynthia McKinney, Rosa Clemente - Green Party
- Brian Moore, Stewart Alexander - Socialist Party USA
- Ralph Nader, Matt Gonzalez - Independant
Tonight[1], there will be a third-party debate on C-SPAN. i attended one such debate at Vanderbilt, the day prior to Nashville's so-called "Town Hall Debate" featuring Obama and McCain. The differences are striking- and if you watch the debate tonight, you can see if my observations still hold true. First, at the third party debate, there was a wide range of ideas and philosophies. What else would you expect at an event including the Socialist Party, the US Pacifist Party, and even the Boston Tea Party? i found it refreshing. Similarly refreshing was the utter lack of "he said, she said, but i said it first" which dominates the major parties' joint debates. The scope of discussion and tone of debate were much more interesting and altogether more useful.
Why are the joint major party debates so limited? Well, it starts with the sponsor- a group called the Commission on Presidential Debates, which wrestled the debates from the non-partisan League of Women Voters in the 1980s.
Here are some complaints i have regarding the Commission. First, it is a brainchild of both major parties- the two parties that defend the status quo. It was founded and is co-chaired by the former chairs of the RNC and DNC. The board consists of politically connected Republicans and Democrats, as well as CEOs of Fortune 500 companies. A former board member of Fannie Mae, for example, is on this board. It's funded by corporations.
i won't go on about this because someone else already has- i urge you to investigate for yourself. NPR Commentator Connie Rice did, in 2004, and found herself presenting a scathing review called the Top 10 Secrets They Don't Want You to Know About the Debates. Walter Cronkite declared Commission-sponsored debates an "unconscionable fraud."
What are the consequences of the limited exposure of third parties, and their exclusion from debates? i'll explain this anecdotally. Some candidates at the third party debate in Nashville couldn't be more dissimilar in ideologies- they made Obama and McCain look like two shades of the same color. Yet even with the wide range in philosophy, the entire 6-person forum were in outspoken agreement on some key issues, like ending our interventionist, perhaps imperialist foreign policy, and fighting against corporatism (not to be confused with capitalism). Neither Obama, McCain, nor the moderators give these ideas any mention. Where some would have you believe Obama and McCain are polar opposites, it's really a matter of scope.
Ron Paul made an announcement at the Nation Press Club[2] on September 10th, where he encourages Americans to choose their favorite third party candidate over the two leading candidates:
The truth is that our two-party system offers no real choice. The real goal of the campaign is to distract people from considering the real issues.The four additional candidates with enough ballot access to theoretically carry the electoral college all signed on to support a platorm of Foreign Policy, Privacy, Fiscal Policy, and Monetary Policy - three candidates who are very different from one another, but in unison hold key positions that are in opposition to the two major candidates! This should show us how far the charade has gone.
Our two leading candidates are in joint disagreement with Americans on the bailout, international adventurism, and privacy issues, while there are several candidates available who are of the real majority, and might perhaps even win if they had any comparable exposure. A Zogby poll indicated that 55% of likely voters favor the inclusion of Bob Barr in the debates. Since the two parties control the debates (while hardly anyone notices) this didn't happen. Do you see what's happening?
i urge you to find a list of candidates on your ballot for each office, and honestly consider them all. Consider stepping out of the two-party charade of false choice and cast an informed, principled vote for someone who might actually represent you well. Cast off the politics of fear-mongering by actually voting for someone (there is no vote against option on the ballot). Choose the candidate who you think will best serve as president, and vote for him or her.
Update 1 Oct 20
i mischaracterized the Oct 19th debate as a "third party" debate. The debate, which has been rescheduled for Oct 23rd, is open to all 6 candidates with ballot access sufficient to win the electoral college.
Update 2 Oct 20
Here are some better links to videos of the conference: parts 1, 2, 3 (McKinney), 4 (Baldwin), 5 (Nader). Original link.
RSS Feed (posts)
2 comments:
I agree with many of your points, but I'll play devil's advocate.
You and I have discussed some of these things before, but it's worth taking the conversation public.
I should also say, I didn't take the time to click through all your links, so if you covered one of my arguments, enlighten me.
That said, here's my take:
Most of the American public do not wish to leave their comfort zones. The current gov't is their basis for judgement and they are somewhat comfortable with it(the gov't, not necessarily it's officials). So as long as they are not in shambles(which is increasingly probable, recently), they are not going to favor a candidate that will bring drastic change (over incremental, or no change). I strongly feel that the magnitude of the "independent" parties' goals make them unappealing to the majority of the public. Further, how can a candidate who is outspoken against corporatism expect to be elected into a government that corporate lobbyists have a strangle hold on? Could they be skipping a few critical steps in their head-on approach?
Is it possible that Obama and McCain are not outspoken on the same issues as some of the independents only because they know those issues basically political suicide?
I guess my basic point is that a country is not going favor a 180. They need gradual change or change in disguise (like giving a dog a pill by putting it in a piece of cheese). So a vote for one of these candidates without a long term period for the public to warm up to them, is pointless.
I will choose incremental change over an impossibility(for this term) or the risk of more of the same.
i don't think American's are comfortable with their government. Bush's approval rating is around 25% and Congress' is even lower. In June, 56% of Americans polled indicated they would like to see a strong third party, and it's been a steady 50% since 2000.
Check out Paul's press conference regarding third party voting, which i linked to in the article. Paul cites a poll that indicates 60% are unhappy with their choices of McCain and Obama.
Post a Comment