Politicians aren’t ruining democracy by their existence; they are ruining it for other reasons


     Since well… ever, the fostering and outcry of Washington pundits have been in full force. With the creation of the 24/7 news services, things in Washington, as well as the media, have changed. Politicians are easily eclipsed nowadays by these pundits throwing out half-developed cries for reform. 

      Bizarrely, the recent platform for these “social media Socrates” is demolishing America’s foundation political party system. What seems to be forgotten is the ever-developing parties like The Green Party and The Tea Party to name just a few examples of third parties. Quite frankly, politicians seldom get elected from these platforms leading many “independents” to grow rightfully frustrated. 

      Now while it is debatable that this country has a two-party system, it is obvious which parties have the biggest following and are most likely to get politicians elected. Due to this, there is a belief that the Democrat and Republican Parties are ruining democracy just by their existence (and this is probably true, but for other reasons).

     Many see the only antidote to this is the institution of a ranked voting system. Voting like this would mean that voters rank their top candidates in a list most preferred to least. What most “Instagram political experts” don’t realize is what they are proposing would be strikingly like The Iowa Caucus.

      This unique form of voting requires citizens to pack into local libraries and schools to debate, and literally stand up to vote for a candidate. There are major problems with this, mainly, caucuses can last for over three hours and some voters will not go to vote because of this. Many will claim that voter turnout for American elections is lower than other countries anyway, the last two elections show a growth in voter turnout as well as grassroot donations to candidates. 

      Additionally, caucuses can be influenced by “back door agreements” and politicians can levy support of giant caucuses reducing the importance of voters in smaller caucuses. I guess having two parties is bad; but it’s nothing a lower voter turnout rate can’t fix. 

     Customarily only the two major party candidates will debate prior to the election. Third parties are shut out of the debates because candidates must get the necessary votes to receive admission into the debate (third parties don’t usually get the required support). 

     The most irrefutable evidence that the two party system isn’t something to worry about, is what these people forget. You do not have to “write in” a third party candidate’s name on your ballot, they are listed just like any other party’s candidate would be.

      Many will argue the legitimate claim that third parties have no chance to win elections. This is indisputable, in the last 46 elections not one third party candidate has won a single state. This isn’t due to anything other than the way Campaign Finance laws allow lobbyist and corporations like “BIGPHARMA” and “BIGTECH” to donate large figures of money to candidates. 

     This practice  ensures the politician will not pass laws that hurt these sponsors. The lobbyists get politicians in their pockets on both sides of the aisle, due to the large sums of donations they can provide.

     Without reforming this issue, the Democratic and Republican parties will still dominate media markets, news conferences, debates and accumulate the largest campaign wealth, probably leading them to win all elections no matter how we vote.

       It is the core issue that leads to corruption: people hating politics and congress spinning their wheels on  issues that would help citizens but hurt big businesses. Two parties raise the likelihood that the minority is heard. Two parties raise voter awareness of the issues facing America. Ranked voting lowers voter turnout while raising the chance of more narrow elections, that would ultimately be challenged. 

     Maybe we should leave the top 10 to David Letterman or in Wayne’s World.