The two primary political parties have once again produced a mockery of our political system, not to mention multiple hours of astonishingly boring television, by not allowing Ralph Nader to participate in the upcoming presidential debates.
By perpetuating the duopoly that dictates all American elections, the United States continues to handcuff its citizens into seeing, hearing and voting for one of only two possible candidates. Elections are meant to reflect the will of the people, but what has become of them demands a serious recourse. The most important change that needs to be made is allowing voters to be informed, even if that means ruffling a few feathers.
Almost no incentive exists to watch the presidential debates if you have paid even the most modest amount of attention to politics over the last few months. Do not expect any jaw-dropping revelations, shocking statements or even the expression of a strong opinion to take place during the upcoming debates. Do expect two eerily similar men spewing out extremely coached and rehearsed answers to unassuming questions. With the candidates' general sentiment about debates being that they have a better chance to significantly damage their standing rather than improve upon it, there is little motivation for immoderate responses.
If Nader was added to the debates, there would be a whole new dynamic to entice viewers to watch and listen. He would display a distinctly different, progressive voice that would undoubtedly shake up Bush and Kerry's game plans, and maybe even bring the two out of their shells.
For too long the United States has felt as though it is only required to tell part of the story of American politics. The generally-accepted political figures who hover around the middle of the political spectrum until after elected are constantly shoved down the throats of potential voters for the months preceding the election.
This does much to promote apathy among eligible voters who never hear anything except slanderous propaganda between the Republicans and Democrats. Nobody speaks to these voters, or at least nobody they will hear. The scope of American politics is so narrow that no real change of ideals is even possible in this country, and those who hold enough political power to influence the shape of politics are too satisfied with the status quo to risk their positions by allowing new ideas to be publicized.
Along with the difficulty inherent in promoting a free-thinking candidate, a third party has to deal with the reputation of wasting votes or, in extreme cases, ruining elections. However, a vote is equally wasted if the true will of the voter is not voiced. To simply vote for the lesser of two evils is the equivalent of conceding the future of the United States to the powers already in control, and that makes our country something quite different than a democracy.
Why do we accept these limitations as inevitable? As long as an alternative voice is silenced, an ambitious thought suppressed and an honest vote scoffed at, the United States will never be as free as it claims.
opinion@dailycardinal.com.
