Why Not?

<p>Like greyhounds being led around a track, far too long American voters have gone through the paces believing the way we have always done things is the way we always should. Despite what happens in American politics or how fed up we may be we still keep getting stuck with only two political parties. With the exception of this past election, for so long every two years it's like meatloaf or chicken all over again as if Americans don't deserve anything else. No matter how frustrated we become with the party closest to our views we usually never have the opportunity for anything new. </p>

<p>In 2008 we successfully elected change and it didn't result in the roof caving in on our heads- so why stop now? The idea we may only vote for either of two parties is essentially a misnomer sold as fact for many years. A marketing strategy cooked up to fool us into believing we have no choice but a "two party system." That myth is no more true than the one the big three automakers tried to sell us on in the eighties that we needed to buy only from them and whatever they gave us.

Truth is we can have as many political parties as Americans opt for. In the two major parties certain members have a way of pushing the idea anything else is radical, bizarre or un-American. This has slowly become tradition bordering on policy miring us in political redundancy.</p>

<p>From 1976 to 1988 The League of Women Voters served the American public better than any before and certainly after them as our national presidential debate sponsors. They organized, monitored and ran debates. Unlike today’s debates the rules and any agreements were completely transparent, tough questions were asked, follow up questions were allowed and third party candidates could debate if they were popular even over the objections of the two major parties. Having an independent sponsor not only helped provide balance and a monitoring system with regards to the presidential debates, but served to represent the best interests of the public.</p>

<p>Tough and probing questions put candidates on the spot, and helped bring out issues of interest to the public. There is always a need for rules and fairness in election debates, but they should be about the public selecting the best public servants not the parties being able to barter for kid gloves or prop themselves up while crowding out other voices. That is self serving providing no benefit to the public. If any candidates cannot stand up to the pressure of stating their policies and being able to stand by them in the face of the public or against the scrutiny of an opponent who disagrees with them, how can they stand up to the pressures of being president? </p> <p>The League of Women Voters were expert at protecting the fairness and civility due candidates while making sure the interests of the public were guarded. How can debates sponsored, arranged, negotiated and worked out exclusively by two main parties really serve a society as diverse in opinion and as important internationally as our own? Certain members of the major parties stole the reigns from The League of Women Voters. Why they chose to do so is still in question and deserves an answer.</p>

<p>When only two parties are expected to represent the needs of all Americans it can sometime result in a case of biting off more than they can chew. At times that is glaringly evident. Take for example the Republican Party's many appeals to the religious right during the previous two elections. This was a central part of the G.W. Bush campaign produced promises, and although some were made and some followed through on, for the most part the ball was really dropped. </p>

<p>In interviews and elsewhere a former member of the Bush administration, David Kuo, talked about his experience as the # 2 person in the White House's Faith-Based Office from Bush's swearing in until Kuo's departure in 2003. He discussed among other things how during the campaigning then candidate Bush promised $8 billion in his first year in office for faith based initiatives, yet during the two years Kuo was with the administration $60 million was actually handed out. 9/11 happened and things changed, but Kuo says the holes were evident before that.</p>

<p>For instance, his blog from beliefnet Kuo states, "in June 2001, the promised tax incentives for charitable giving were stripped at the last minute from the $1.6 trillion tax cut legislation to make room for the estate-tax repeal that overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy." Kuo also discussed Senator Tom Daschle approaching the administration about a bill he was proposing with tax incentives aimed at faith based groups President Bush had himself proposed, but certain members of the administration turned it down, though according to the Kuo it seemed like a good idea. </p>

<p>Not all members of President Bush's administration had the same level of respect for Christian leaders largely influential in getting them elected. In an interview with CBS Kuo related senior Bush Administration officials often mocked people from the religious right who campaigned for them. For instance Pat Robertson was referred to as "insane" and Jerry Falwell "ridiculous." Many of those on the right around the country voted for President Bush because they truly believed he would follow through on his promises regarding policies to be implemented. But, whether due to members of his administration's distaste for leaders on the religious right or other reasons many of those promises were never fulfilled.</p>

<p>I don't bring up this example of the Faith-Based Office or voters from the Christian right because I have a particular stake here. I bring it up because it is a very obvious and clear example of how no one party can be all things to all people. The more they try the more likely it is some issues will be seen as unimportant. If there were political parties whose focus were more narrow perhaps their voices would be less likely to suffer from neglect.</p>

<p>Even if only a few members of a new party were to be elected, in order to get agendas through major parties may often have to concede points and negotiate with third parties to get the votes they need. In that way third parties could be among other things an opportunity for people to strengthen their political stance instead of always opting for "the lesser of two evils". With only two the chances are most voices will lose out to other agendas. </p>

<p>When opting for third parties we are simply working to make our voices heard as Americans no matter our beliefs. Instead of being bystanders in a game played by two parties we can move our own feet forward more, have more of a say and in more ways have how we vote count for something. In the end it is a way of making sure the values we hold are best represented and respected in debates and politics in general by sometimes keeping the big two in check. </p>

<p>The League of Women Voters represented a voice apart from either partisanship or bi-partisanship and more than ever we need to get that back. It is good to see not just the two party's get political appointments but perhaps those from third parties as well. Why stop the progress we've achieved as a nation?</p>

<p>To read about my inspiration for this article go to <a href="http://www.lawsuitagainstuconn.com">www.lawsuitagainstuconn.com</a>.</p>