"The lesser of two evils” became a phrase as common in this presidential election as “hanging chad” was back during the 2000 election.
The phrase is usually used to describe the choice between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, but what if this election season, people had other choices — 27 choices even — wouldn’t that make for a better election?
The truth is, Americans did have that many choices, but third party candidates are often unknown and looked upon with a level of disdain normally reserved for child molesters or Nickelback.
Following the coverage of third party candidates, one subject was mentioned often — the magic 5 percent. It seems as though getting 5 percent of the vote would be such a small and insignificant amount, and it’s certainly not going to get anyone into the the White House.
But, winning isn’t what all candidates are looking for. Third party candidate Gary Johnson acknowledged this fact in a recent interview with the politics website Politico, “I think Obama’s going to win; that’s what I think.”
With winning out of the picture, what 5 percent does get a candidate is movement of their political party to the status of an official minor party. As an official minor party, they are given access to federal funding, which makes it easier for them to get on the ballot — a particularly important issue, considering no third party candidates were able to get on the ballot in Oklahoma. Of the 27 third party candidates running, only two were able to get on the ballot in Illinois.
As far as reaching this lofty 5 percent goal, the candidates did pretty horribly. Of the 27 candidates, only two were able to make it above 0.1 percent of the popular vote. Those were Jill Stein representing the Green Party for 0.3 percent, and Gary Johnson, a man who many thought could pull off 5 percent or at least close to it, managed to pull off 0.9 percent.
So, why should America care? The third party candidates represent a lot of issues. One major issue is the effect of money on American politics. It’s no surprise that major candidates like Obama and Romney spent a fortune to get voters.
Estimates have shown the candidates spent somewhere around $2 billion on advertising this election. Excluding Super PACs and national committees, the Obama campaign still spent $553.2 million — about $9.12 in advertising for each vote.
Romney spent $360.4 million — about $6.23 per vote — while third party candidate Gary Johnson only spent $2 million, getting his votes for a seemingly cheap $1.76. It really goes to show how big of a difference a massive amount of cash can make in a campaign.
The third party candidates also represent choice.
With the current two party system, choice is largely an illusion for some people. With only two candidates being offered to them, it becomes a game of trying to match what are deemed the most important issues to a candidate — again, back to the idea of the lesser of two evils.
Given the spirit of democracy in this country, the idea of picking the lesser evil to run the county seems un-American. These third party candidates can fill the holes that some candidates create.
So, in four years when it’s time to pick a new president, maybe it’s time to start looking at these third party candidates. Maybe voters’ views are more in line with Virgil Goode and his Constitution Party, or even Roseanne Barr (yes, that Roseanne), and they can finally pick a candidate that speaks to their views and needs instead of being stuck with the lesser of two evils.
http://www.westerncourier.com/opinions/more-parties-better-options/article_975c42a0-2aac-11e2-a56b-0019bb30f31a.html
No comments:
Post a Comment