Two Party Madness

Mathematics suggests that a two party political system should be twice as good as a one party system. The reality is multiplication. One times one = two. A couple, dancing as one. Republicrats and Democans in a blurring identity crisis.

The disenfranchised sit out this dance and pray for miracles. We ignore a simple and obvious political solution and exit from the two party merry- go- round. Let the disenfranchised vote for no other than third party candidates for the next twenty years, or however long it takes to be rid of this two party abomination.

How many of today's Democrats and Republicans would be so if they believed any third party candidate had a near equal chance of election? Instead of using political gangs or machines to dominate the world with ideas that belong to a bloody past, why not try to get the most reasonable, intelligent and ethical leadership from all these relatively unknown and unadvertised political parties? The fact that third parties and their platforms are relatively obscure, is proof of a woefully ignorant electorate that will continue to choose the perceived lesser of two evils when good is a clear option.

Why isn't the Public Broadcasting Corporation telling the public about the third party options for meaningful politics? Is this waiting for the full implementation of multi- channel programming by this corporation? Perhaps there are no plans by any popular media organizations/corporations to support multi-party, multi-dimensional politics. Is the Master plan two dimensional politics forever?

Any Democrat or Republican candidate for office who cannot defend and debate the merits of third party platforms and planks are not fit to hold public office. Their knowledge is proven too specialized to be trusted with many decisions. Members of third parties should be asking the two party candidates where they stand on third party issues. In California's recent recall election, I think the Green Party candidate had the best of published ideas. Yet the "progressive" California voters still dance to the two party tune. If California indicates where we are headed in national politics, we've been there for two centuries. Where is the progress?

Any public debates that take place without representatives of many third parties ought to be ignored. Always remember that a two party debate is worth less and quite often, worthless as well. If it is wisdom to know your enemy, it is wisdom to know all candidates, in the event they are elected only to then become your enemy. Two party dancers know only what is being promised, they know very few candidates very well. If I am voting, I owe it to you and me to choose the best possible candidate for a job, regardless of political party. If my vote counts in the end, I vote not for me but for us. I faithfully discharge a social obligation in total seriousness. I do not speculate on all the possible outcomes of my choices, whether or not my BEST choices succeed in THIS PARTICULAR election. I must truly encourage their persistence if we are to make any positive changes in the body politic.

We hire someone to watch over me - and you. Then we say; who is watching the watchers? Why, the watchers are watching one another. What a fine job they do! How rich and powerful they become! How can we better serve them? Whoa! I'm free! All the powerful tell me so. They serve me, at least until they demand I serve them in national service, war mongering, public support or any of their many created functions. That is, we elect conditional servants who can turn the tables of service whenever they so choose. What is a military draft except a demand of servants that sovereigns render them a paid service? I am conditionally free - when my services are not demanded. No matter the latest music, we are all dancing the two party tango and service to someone is a given.

If elections are accurately compared to horse races, it is clear the overwhelming majority wage makers always bet on one of two favorites. They see no additional profit should a long shot win the race. In fact, the winning long shot will be handicapped by minority status in a three party system, which is not to say the long shot will not influence political discussion. In fact, the more successful third parties become, the more the dominant two will incorporate their ideas to gain votes. Let us not concern ourselves with the improbability of third party power in the two party dance. Let us simply add their influence and see if they can at least change the tune to which we dance.

If all third parties are also evil, would it not be a pleasant change to have at least three favorites in a race? Would it not be an improvement to be able to select the least of three evils instead of the lesser of two? Our political racing forms essentially print the names of the two favorites at the top of the form, in bold print. The long shots are then listed below in small print and many good horses are not allowed in the event, to prevent voter confusion.

When the rare informed voters have studied third party politics, they can see what the favorites do not want discussed and probably why. They can publicly ask questions of candidates that demonstrate how blind ambition can be, to all who hear the answers to such questions. Third parties should at least inform national and local political debate until they can transform the debate. Without third party politics, the most meaningful questions are not asked. Evil takes priority, then supremacy, with only a fifty-fifty chance that the winner is the lesser of two evils. Many argue this happened in the 2000 Presidential race. The greater evil prevailed.

In the Twentieth Century, America's tolerance for evil was stretched by generational wars. That tolerance transformed into an appetite for evil. Until the nation gains control of this appetite, more and more of us will be sitting out the two party dance and evil will reign supreme.