What Are The Major Parties Afraid Of?

Published on August 16, 2004 By Gideon MacLeish In Politics

Well, election season is imminent, and once again, the talk begins to turn to the presidential and vice presidential debates. Once again, as well, the Libertarian and Green Party candidates, despite being on the ballot, are notably absent. This leads me to question why?

Why are the Democrats and Republicans afraid to allow these parties, which have steadily gained in membership and respectability over the years, into "their" debates? Are they afraid that either/or will send a message that will resonate far closer to the American public than anything that either of the major parties has to say?

By closing the door on democracy, the major parties undermine their own credibility and respective platforms. If they truly feel that the Green/Libertarian candidates are fringe lunatics, it seems they would welcome the idea to dismiss these candidates on a public and open stage.

To the credit of both parties, the Green and Libertarian parties have been working cooperatively to attempt to be included in the debates. Much of the mainstream media has dismissed both of these parties (since Nader isn't the Green Party's darling this year), and as a result, many disenfranchised voters will continue to feel disenfranchised because they haven't heard a message that hits home for them. Far too many will stay home from the polls because they feel that there is not a candidate who fairly represents their views, when in fact, there just may be. I think it's time to stop the charade of US politics, and allow these candidates to debate. It's time to allow us a chance at a truly democratic election.

For more on the green party, go to www.greenpartyus.org

For more on the libertarian party go to www.lp.org

signing off,

Gideon MacLeish

Comments

dubz

on Aug 17, 2004

Thank you gideon, we need more parties on stage. Id like to see nader on stage. If it was kerry, bush, and nader. Bush would look like a fool and bush would lose votes. It may help kerry. Nader would get more respect and therefore take votes away from bush. So its not kerry losing votes. With more people, they say it would take forever, but we need to give everybody equality.

Gideon MacLeish

on Aug 17, 2004

Allowing Nader wouldn't be rigt, though, without allowing Cobb (Green Party candidate) and Badnarik (LP candidate). As popular as Nader is, he's not on the ballot in all 50 states this year; Cobb and Badnarik, on the other hand, are.

Madine

on Aug 17, 2004

Major parties are afraid that minor parties will siphon off votes and cause the major party to lose to the other major party.

Gideon MacLeish

on Aug 17, 2004

Major parties are afraid that minor parties will siphon off votes and cause the major party to lose to the other major party.

I think that's just a small portion of the reason. If the third parties don't hold a legitimate platform, why would the major parties be afraid of anything?

Personally, I believe it is about power and control. Democratic and Republican candidates are part of the political machine; they're bought and sold by special interests (as, admittedly, are some third party candidates; they're just different special interests and not as powerful). If they can control the playing field, they insure that their special interests are well represented. The casualty, however, of this mindset, is the democratic process.

Lord Shitzu

on Aug 17, 2004

Personally, I believe it is about power and control. Democratic and Republican candidates are part of the political machine; they're bought and sold by special interests (as, admittedly, are some third party candidates; they're just different special interests and not as powerful). If they can control the playing field, they insure that their special interests are well represented. The casualty, however, of this mindset, is the democratic process.

I agree, I am actually very interested in the coalitional government practiced in many parts of Europe. To me, it just makes a hell of a lot more sense to allow power to be shared by as many distinct groups as possible. At the same time, the Democrats and Republicans seems so stale and boring compared to the independent sides.

On top of that, they have way too much overlap in policy and even general thinking to be a good choice. Politics becomes too personal for my taste when I find myself supporting the Democrat candidate almost entirely because I can't stomach, and don't trust, the opposing candidate. I want to be voting on policies, not personalities. I wouldn't give a damn if the candidate I was voting for was as stiff and boring as a post if I had an assurance that his policies, and those endorsed by his party, followed closely with my personal convictions.

It doesn't make sense that whichever side wins, it's at best a plurality getting executive control of the nation for four years. Sure the Presidency isn't everything, far from it, but a coalitional government where differing sides are forced to compromise, and all "sides" get at least a proportional representation, seems like a much fairer way to do things.

I dream of an America where a candidate, or a congressman, wouldn't have to try to be as centrist as possible to succeed. Where he wouldn't have to try to appease all sides, because when it came down to it, he wouldn't have quite enough power where he wouldn't have to cooperate and compromise with representatives of the "other side."

Of course, the funny thing is that many would object to the very idea of a shared and coalitional government, due on their political beliefs of a need for expedient government, since it would undoubtedly slow the way policymaking is done to a crawl.

Don Bemont

on Aug 17, 2004

I basically agree, but there are a couple things to keep in mind:

Part of the problem is the perceived legitimacy of a president who wins with, say, 40% of the popular vote and 40% of the electoral vote. Although the constitution spells out a process to follow in this case, it would be a difficult situation for the country. Very simply, it is not a coalition government that would result.

Second, although thinking people see no problem with another party coming along and supplanting one of the major ones (it has happened, after all), the process is uncomfortable. The splitting of either the conservative or the liberal vote is an irrational way to choose a course for the country, and we do not have a parliamentary government where you need to cobble together a majority, and if that alliance does not work, the government falls.

Further, the likelihood of dirty dealing increases. The idea of liberals using their money to support a far right candidate or conservatives using their money to support a far left candidate challenges the integrity of the whole election system.

Now, I am well aware that these are not the main motivations that fire partisan Democrats and partisan Republicans, it is just that, if we are looking out for the country, these are things to keep in mind.

In favor of your idea, however, anything that would inject clear cut argumentation of the great questions facing the country, would certainly be a plus. But then again, the current debate format is meant to make good TV, not good argumentation.

Gideon MacLeish

on Aug 17, 2004

But then again, the current debate format is meant to make good TV, not good argumentation.

And therein lies part of the problem.

For the record, Badnarik is polling at 3% nationwide (that's without the media exposure of the major candidates). In an election that's projected to be close, even that 3% could undercut Bush severely; it's something they should pay attention to and address. If you feel we're fringe radicals, let us share a stage with you and prove us for the loonies we are. The Bush campaign has, however, dismissed the LP entirely (see my related article).

Madine

on Aug 17, 2004

I looked at Wikipedia, and the last time a Libertarian Presidential candidate got more than 1% of the vote was 1980.

I would venture to guess that most "politially aware" people are familiar with the Libertarian party and its philosophy.

Gideon MacLeish

on Aug 17, 2004

I looked at Wikipedia, and the last time a Libertarian Presidential candidate got more than 1% of the vote was 1980.

Yes, this year figures to be different in large part because many conservatives are looking for alternatives to Bush.

I would venture to guess that most "politially aware" people are familiar with the Libertarian party and its philosophy.

I would disagree. Many are misinformed. This is, in some small part, what I hope to correct.

I have always been somewhat politically aware. When I was in high school, and asked about the Libertarian party, I was told simply "they're so far right they're left. Don't waste your vote".

The four words "Don't waste your vote" have deterred many people from even asking about parties beyond the big two. I have spoken with many people who have expressed a near mirror of the LP position, and had no idea they were doing so until I pointed it out to them.

Lord Shitzu

on Aug 18, 2004

The four words "Don't waste your vote" have deterred many people from even asking about parties beyond the big two. I have spoken with many people who have expressed a near mirror of the LP position, and had no idea they were doing so until I pointed it out to them.

I think that's a very important point, Gideon. I know many people who would agree with a part of the Libertarian platform, myself included, but they never even consider that a party (be it Libertarian, Green, or anything outside the big two) might actually be a direct (or at least more direct) reflection of their own beliefs.

Gideon MacLeish

on Aug 18, 2004

right, lordshitzu. They possess a quixotic dream of reforming the parties they hold dear (be it the dems or repubs), without realizing that too much money from too many powerful political machines has been invested to allow an idealistic activist to change that.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!