Wednesday’s “Presidential Debate” between the College Democrats and College Republicans, while laudable in its efforts to elevate discourse on campus, was glaringly indicative of a fundamental flaw at the heart of our current political landscape. In the “yes or no” response round, there were only a few topics the debaters gave the same response for, echoing the polarizing nature of today’s national political scene and leaving people who don’t think every issue is black and white out in the cold.
Less than a year from now, many students on campus will be voting in their first presidential election. The overwhelming majority (this is Madison, remember) will be casting their vote for the reelection of President Barack Obama. A smaller number have likely already made up their mind to vote for the GOP nominee, whoever he (sorry, Ms. Bachmann) ends up being. A choice few might pull the lever for somebody else, but let’s face it: In this country, our two-party duopoly – which was prominently on display Wednesday night – means we only get two choices for president. And as South Park so eloquently put it in the run-up to the 2004 election, too often we end up being forced to choose between a douche and a turd.
Of course, we could vote third-party, but let’s be honest. A vote for a third-party, with the way the system is now, is at best a symbolic gesture. The effect of having only two viable options, then, is a homogenization of political thought. In a country as diverse as ours, to pretend that all political opinion must fall under the tents of two diametrically opposed groups is ridiculous.
Republicans and Democrats, though seemingly mortal enemies, have common ground in wanting to maintain this status quo. They do not want there to be more choices; they will fight to the death anything that represents a threat to their duopoly. And the general public, more or less, has tacitly agreed to what is essentially a false dichotomy.
But could we be seeing a paradigm shift? Since the election of President Obama in 2008, we have seen political unrest via the rise of the Tea Party on the right, and most recently via the predominately left-wing movement of the Occupy Wall Street protests. Approval ratings of Congress are always low, but according to the latest CBS/New York Times poll, a minuscule 9 percent of the public approves of the job Congress is doing, an all-time low. If there has ever been a time to start having a conversation about getting rid of this two-party duopoly, isn’t it now?
I am not naive enough to think that any change is going to come soon; it might not even come in our lifetimes. We are just too entrenched in the current system. But there is something we can do now to help bring about a wider range of party choice: allow fusion voting.
Fusion voting is when multiple parties are allowed to nominate the same candidate. This may sound strange, but what fusion voting does is allow third parties to have more influence in elections, which, theoretically, would gradually increase their power until they become viable options on their own.
For instance, the Tea Party could break off from the GOP and become their own party. However, instead of nominating their own candidate, they would essentially endorse the Republican candidate – who undoubtedly would have a better shot at winning a general election.
The reason this would increase their influence is because people would have the option of voting for, say, Mitt Romney, by checking the box for either Mitt Romney-Republican or Mitt Romney-Tea Party. Thus, when election results are totaled, if Romney wins the election he is forced to acknowledge the support of the Tea Party. The end goal, although admittedly far down the road, would be for the parties to gain enough ground to nominate their own candidates.
Currently, fusion voting is illegal in all but eight states (and is obviously not allowed in presidential elections). Yet in this country we are fond of speaking of “the marketplace of ideas” – why not allow more viable voices in the political marketplace? The fact that Texas Congressman Ron Paul – and if he isn’t a libertarian, no one is – is running for the Republican nomination is exactly what’s wrong with the system. If he wanted any chance at all of being elected, he had no choice but to run as a Republican. And that’s a damn shame.
Reasonable people may disagree on whether fusion voting is a good idea or not, but the end goal of a wider range of political viewpoints having real power is something we should all be able to get behind.
Even four viable options instead of two would make a world of difference. Imagine a 2012 election where we could choose between Russ Feingold, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. The debates alone would be spectacular, elevating discourse beyond the this or that nature of Wednesday’s “Presidential Debate.” But instead, once the GOP gets around to nominating Romney, we’ll once again sit through another election full of homogeneous political thought, with only two real choices in the end. I’ll let you decide who’s the douche and who’s the turd.
Zach Butzler ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in political science.
