American Menagerie

We know that the two-party system is sucks-ville; but how can we fix it? Well, one the best ways to start is with how campaigns are financed. Campaign finance is a powder keg topic. Limiting it is akin to limiting free speech and too much support is seen as political welfare by others.

On the whole, being a politician is a rich man’s job. It takes an enormous amount of capital to even begin to think about running for office, and even more tons of money to actually capture the office. According to the Federal Election Commission, Barack Obama has raised over $240 million for his presidential bid. Hillary Clinton has raised over $194 million; John McCain has raised $80 million. In contrast, Bob Barr the recently announced Libertarian candidate for President has only raised $102 thousand. Ralph Nader, the perpetual Green Party candidate has raised $605 thousand.

Unlimited campaign financing by individuals ultimately will lead to corruption, greased palms and that ilk. Donors naturally are going to want something for their money and the candidate is going to feel pressured to give in. There is already a policy to provide public funds for the general election. Candidates have to choose to accept this money, and pledge to not use more than the allotted funds in the election. For 2008, the amount is a lump sum of $85 million, or just under double what a major party candidate can raise in a month from private donations. The real kicker is that for a party to receive public funds that party has to receive more that 5% of the popular vote in preceding election. So, for the first election, the party is on its own. No wonder we only have two parties, the minority parties are literally being drowned by the major parties funds.

So how do we fix this egregious assault on democracy? My favorite idea is the Ackerman-Ayres plan. The premise of the plan is that instead of the government doling out the money to candidates in one large lump sum, the voters get to choose how the money is doled out. Voters would be allocated $10 for House candidates, $15 for Senators and $25 for the President. How the voters would allocate the funds was not established, but could easily be done online, which would allow the funds to be allocated up until Election Day. If you want to allocate your $25 to a minority party candidate, you and everyone else can. More importantly, the allocations will be anonymous. Couple the Ackerman-Ayres plan with strict campaign finance rules, such as preventing any other money to be spent on the campaign, and it could effectively remove most of the corruption and policy buying in elections, as well as allow minority parties to play with the majors on an even playing field.

Of course most everything with the plan is negotiable. If $50 is too much of a burden that can’t be covered by existing taxes, lower it. If it’s better for the funds to be allocated on tax forms, to prevent having to establish a new federal commission to over see it, do it. The benefit of allowing every voter to support with public funds the candidate that truly represents them is a major step in getting rid of the two-party system and having a truely representative democracy.

Do you agree with everything or even the majority of the policies and stances of the politicians you voted into office? I certainly don’t and I’d guess that many of you don’t as well. So, why did we vote for them? Odds are it was for one distinct ideal they held. That policy overwrote any other misgivings we might have had about the politician when we held our nose and pulled that lever to try and put him or her into office. While I am a willing participant in this system, I can recognize that it is a broken system. People, myself included, vote routinely for politicians that stands for policies and ideals that are against our ideals or even flat out not in our best interest.

I know pro-choice Republicans, evangelical Socialists, and pro-death penalty Democrats. The voters label themselves as Republicans and Democrats et al. because one of the two main parties’ ideals is the voter’s primary ideal; be it the conservative economical stance of the Republicans, or the pro-choice stance of the Democrats. All were forced to choose which political party to give their vote to; forced because a vote for the other party is a vote against their primary ideal. The pro-death penalty, pro-choice, socially liberal, economically conservative has no recourse if they wish to vote for someone to represent them. This is in essence the flaw with the two party system; you can not vote for someone who is representative of your ideals.

The United States desperately needs more viable political parties. The more parties the better, for every American should have the ability to vote for someone who represents them and their ideals. As America stands now, our representative democracy is far from truly representative.

This blog will be my avenue to showcase the failings of the two party system and the benefits of additional parties. I will to examine public policies and current events and how they relate to the failings of the system and how more parties could solve the issues.