Some years ago, in fact, not long before the 2004 election, I wrote an article entitled "A Modest Proposal" dealing with what I perceived then (and still do) as a major flaw in our current political system. The flaw? The complete dominance of the two-party system! It seems to me that the one (and perhaps the only) thing that the Democrats and the Republicans agree upon -- is that no other party should be allowed to play the game! In the past, this has not always been the case. Indeed, throughout the history of the United States of America, members of six different political parties have been elected to the Presidency -- and many more have served in either the legislatures of the several states or on Capitol Hill. Take a look:
Federalist Party -- George Washington and John Adams
Democratic-Republican Party -- Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe
National Republican Party -- John Quincy Adams
Whig Party -- William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, and Millard Fillmore. (Technically John Tyler ascended the Presidency as a Whig -- but was kicked out of the party soon after!)
The "modern" Democratic party elected it's first president -- Andrew Jackson -- in 1828. The "modern" Republican party elected it's first president -- Abraham Lincoln -- in 1860. (And in 1864, Lincoln chose for his running mate a Southern Democrat as a sign of national unity! Can you imagine something like that happening today?)
What I'm trying to say is this: so-called "minor" parties have been a part of this great nation for more than 200 years. Frequently, these parties have been "single-issue" parties (like the Prohibition Party or the Greenback Party) but their very presence has brought to the fore issues of national importance which needed to be discussed.
Some have suggested that a proliferation of small parties would necessitate the forming of "minority" or "coalition" governments which would, in fact, find it very difficult to actually govern. They point to examples like Italy, the United Kingdom, or Canada. However, in the Electoral College, the United States is protected from many, if not most, of the difficulties of a more parliamentary system. One person still needs those 270 Electoral Votes to be President! But would it hurt to have other voices heard in our legislatures? Of what are the two big parties afraid?
In the 2008 election, three minor parties qualified for ballot access in enough states to have theoretically reached the magic 270 Electoral Vote threshold:
Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate, garnered more than 520,000 votes and appeared on the ballot in at least 45 states.
Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate, garnered more than 180,000 votes and appeared on the ballot in at least 37 states.
Cynthia McKinney, the Green Party candidate, garnered more than 150,000 votes and appeared on the ballot in at least 32 states (and the District of Columbia).
And, of course, Ralph Nader ran as an Independent, garnered more than 690,000 votes and appeared on the ballot in at least 45 states (and the District of Columbia).
These four candidates, each of whom could have THEORETICALLY won the White House due to their ballot access, together accounted for more than 1.5 MILLION votes. Yes, this represents only a bit more than 2% of the ballots cast -- but all four were LEGITIMATE NATIONAL CANDIDATES! Why were they not permitted to participate in the Presidential Debates.
(Please note: my mentioning these candidates and political parties should not be construed as an endorsement of any sort. I'm trying to make a point! Nor am I suggesting that parties or individuals who manage to make the ballot in only a couple of states should be taken particularly seriously. I'm talking about allowing the major players, who represent parties which are at least decades old, to be treated with the legitimacy they deserve.)
How would participation by these other candidates have hurt? The final results of the 2008 election would most likely have remained the same. The number of voters choosing a minor candidate might well have increased -- perhaps even dramatically -- but either the Republicans or the Democrats still would have won. The difference? Legitimate issues, on both the "Right" and the "Left" which were ignored during the campaign would at least have been heard. And perhaps, over time, such legitimate issues may well be addressed by the "Big Two". Such has happened in the United States before! Finally, such exposure might well have resulted in success by the minor National parties on the State and Local level.
Would that be such a bad thing?
Papa Z
Labels: History, Politics
