--because your vote should work for YOU!
**A not-too-old piece talking about some of my political leanings. In particular, it details how the two-party system we have now is depriving voters of their power, and offers one possible solution.**
5.3.2004 // Why I'm an Independent
Posted at 4:05 PM
I don't belong to any political party. Why is that? Well, the very short answer is that I don't like any political party out there, but that wouldn't be entirely correct. A slightly more correct answer is that I don't like the idea of political parties to begin with.
Of the political parties I've seen, I've yet to find one whose aims I agree with entirely. Most people tell me that it's ok, and I should just join the party with which I'm most closely aligned. But I don't like to give my name, even just on paper, to a group whose aims might be contrary to my own beliefs. If I can't give them my full support without reservation, why do I want them to count me among their number? That, however, is a personal thing.
My objection to political parties in general is that they are yet another obstacle between the voter and the candidate. Between media spinning, an uninformed voting public, political parties, the primaries, and the electoral college, the vote of John Q. Public is effectively eliminated.
This is not the stated intent of political parties. We're supposed to have them because they're designed to give individual voters more influence than they'd have alone. But in the two-party monopoly our country has, what choices are there? As the Republicans and Democrats co-operate more, there is less and less difference between them, which means fewer options for you, the voter. And if you don't like either of those parties, what recourse do you have? When are third party or independent candidates elected? How much more difficulty do they endure in getting elected? How uneven is the playing field?
Some of this uneveness is there because of the simple fact that the majority of Americans still support, at least on paper, the Democrats and the Republicans. If that's really the case, then that's really the case--majority rule is how our country is supposed to work, and whether that's ok or not is a debate for another time. But I propose that if there were another, more viable option, or if people were more informed and motivated, that both of those parties would loose a lot of support. And if they wanted it to return, they'd have to start listening to voters again.
Having more powerful third parties would not take options away from the majority and put them into the hands of a few radicals. It would mean more competition in politics--which equals more options for voters. Anyone with a basic understanding of economics knows that more competition in the marketplace means more options--higher quality and lower prices!--for consumers. It's good for us when businesses compete! Well guess what? It's good for us when politicians compete too! You want a candidate that takes firm stances on issues? That keeps promises? That cares about your opinions? It's a lot more likely with more opponents for them to deal with. With only two parties and two strong candidates, it's not only a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils--it's a matter of how much the two major parties wish to co-operate. As time goes by, they are coming to realize that the more they work together, the more their power grows. If Congress usually agrees, bills will be passed at an alarming rate, because there will be minimal debate, and no signifigant opposition. I have a bumper sticker that reads "American government philosophy: if it ain't broke, fix it 'till it is." Excessive co-operation between political parties will allow them to fix damned near everything until it's broken, at a much faster rate than they can right now.
So until I discover a better solution, I am registered independent, and I do my best to vote my conscience. Meanwhile, readers, get informed, get registered, and--
Get out there and vote!
Maiken [aka LlamaLamp]