|
Two Party Tyranny
by
Bill Todd
Once again
conservative and liberal pundits are back to battle it out in
the media, attempting to advance their respective candidates
to the podium. The odd thing is that their heroes are becoming
much more similar every election. Their main differentiation
has become how quickly and to which corporate suitors they succumb.
The scourge of these Republicrats are the independent and third
party candidates. With two notable alternative candidates, Ralph
Nader and Pat Buchanan, stirring up the current election, we
are being forced to examine the pitfalls of a bipartisan democratic
society. Although we will assuredly be forced to capitulate
to one of the bipartisan evils, these independent candidates
will force the big players to work harder for votes that they
once took for granted, and might just be the reason why one
of them loses to their foe.
Nader and Buchanan have both earned their right of candidacy
and have arguably better debate skills than their major party
nemeses, potentially raising the level of presidential election
coverage and public interest. Nader, disgusted by the direction
that the Democratic Party has taken, says he intends to give
them a "four year cold shower" with his election run.
Buchanan, recently departed from the Republican Party, is committed
to reformists and other voters ill-represented by the Republicans
and George Bush, Jr. Despite recent polls which show that one
in eight voters wants one of these two candidates to be elected,
they are still shunned by major media as well as by the Federal
Election Commission (F.E.C.).
Our society is governed by the consent of its constituents,
who in turn must lend their support to candidates and political
parties. In theory, these parties exist to promote the peoples'
ideologies by offering them a choice of candidates who represent
these beliefs. The past century’s domination by the Republican
and Democratic parties begs the question: does this situation
truly reflect the popular ideology? Or is it the case that those
in office have manipulated the system to ensure that only the
two major parties can continue their reign of power?
The Founding Fathers, careful in writing the Constitution so
as to prevent the government from being dominated by one interest,
seem to have underestimated the power of political parties.
As decreed in the Constitution, the "times, places and
manner of holding elections... shall be prescribed in each state
by the legislature thereof; but the congress may at any time
by law alter such regulations." This provision gives control
to those in office to keep them and their party exactly there,
in control. One major pitfall of two party politics is deadlock,
yet these two parties have united in a sort of perverse marriage
by passing self-serving legislation that is detrimental to independent
parties. Since state and federal legislatures are dominated
by the two parties, independents are left impotent in these
matters.
This disparity of power was evidenced in the early twentieth
century. "By the mid 1920s, ballot laws were weighted in
favor of preserving the existing major parties." (Mazmanian
92) By the 1940s, several states specifically excluded the communist
party or any party affiliated with it from entering candidates
into elections. In 1948, legislation was introduced into Congress,
"designed to specifically exclude (presidential candidate)
Henry Wallace and the Progressive Party." (Mazmanian 93)
Although it did not pass, Wallace still encountered cumbersome
ballot access restrictions. He retaliated, and eventually forced
the revision of some laws, making it somewhat easier for future
independents to participate.
Nevertheless, as an independent presidential candidate in 1976,
Eugene McCarthy suffered similar restraints regarding ballot
access. He was placed on the ballot in only twenty-nine states,
"(due to) a lack of money for organizing petition drives
(due to federal election law restrictions); to the manner in
which state laws were interpreted and enforced against us; and
to the efforts of the Democratic party to prevent our getting
on the ballot." (McCarthy 122) He encountered ridiculous
petition requirements, and even laws completely forbidding independent
candidates. In all, it was necessary for McCarthy to file eighteen
suits against states before he was allowed on the ballot. This
time consuming and financially draining effort put him at a
strong disadvantage, and even when the courts affirmed his position,
the damage inflicted by the bureaucracy proved irreversible.
All this despite the fact that the Supreme Court set precedent
in 1974 when it ruled that candidates must not be forced to
join a political party in order to be on the ballot, recognizing
that an integral part of an independent candidate's message
is freedom from partisan ties.
In this year's election, Nader expects to be on the ballot in
every state except North Carolina, where he has filed suit against
the state to gain ballot access. Nader failed to meet the state's
requirement of getting over 51,000 supporting signatures before
June first of the election year, a requirement that exceeds
that of most states, and is seen by Nader as a rule designed
to limit access for alternative candidates.
Partisan bias does not exist in law alone; examination of the
mass media reveals a severe lack of coverage given to alternative
candidates. A recent poll suggests that two-thirds of the American
people depend primarily on television as their news source.
The fact that television is the most closely regulated form
of media, and that this regulation comes from the FCC (which
is controlled by Congress) creates legitimate suspicion about
the fairness and accuracy of information presented on television.
Contrary to the idea that "Congress shall make no laws
abridging the freedom of the press," Congress and the courts
have not given televised media the same liberty that the print
media has received. Such regulations as the "equal-time
clause," the now-defunct "fairness doctrine,"
and the "personal attack rule" were established to
ensure fairness, but these rules have been manipulated by politicians
and broadcasters so that only certain voices of opposition may
be heard. For example, the equal-time clause, originally created
to provide all legal candidates for office equal access to television
exposure, was later limited to provide this privilege to only
the two major parties. (Powe 158) Congress and the FCC have,
when legislating, "blatantly used section 315 (the equal-time
clause) to bolster the position of those already holding political
office," (Powe 154) demonstrating how incumbents misuse
their power to keep themselves in office, and to keep independent
candidates at a serious disadvantage.
To add to the problem, broadcasters are also given the privilege
of deciding what type of issue-oriented advertising they will
show on their networks. In the 1969 case of Red Lion v. the
FCC, the Supreme Court decided that "the right of the viewer
was paramount." (Powe 146) But when a broadcaster was urged
to air an anti-war ad shortly after the ruling, the FCC ruled
that "if broadcasters did not want a group's money or ideas,
they do not have to accept it." (Powe 146) This ruling
essentially negated the Supreme Court's ruling, leaving the
door wide open for broadcasters to deny political parties (or
any other group) airwave access.
Now, it seems, it is in the hands of the broadcasters to determine
what is a fair debate. They decide who may speak for the right
and the left, and by presenting these debates as "fair,"
they create an artificial atmosphere in which the hand-selected
participants embody the only two sides of the issue. This disguises
the fact that the underexposed alternative parties may hold
views or raise issues that are beyond, contrary to, or just
completely ignored by the two major parties.
In the upcoming election, according to current Federal Election
Commission standards, Nader and Buchanan won’t be eligible
to be in the debates unless they garner a minimum fifteen percent
poll in at least five national polls. This is a huge hurdle
for any independent candidate, since the debates are a major
way for them to prove themselves and gain votes. In 1992, Ross
Perot spent millions on self-promotion and was able to participate
in the debates. He won nineteen percent of the vote on Election
Day. In contrast, during his 1996 campaign he was not allowed
to join in the debates and won only eight percent. Jesse Ventura’s
1998 run for governor in Minnesota was considered a joke by
the two major party candidates and by the media. But when his
inclusion in the televised debates showcased a "shoot from
the hip" mentality that seemed fresh and honest, the voters
turned out in record numbers to elect him.
Nader’s request to be included in the debates has been
largely ignored by the F.E.C., who have retorted that it is
not their role to "jump-start (his) campaign and all of
a sudden make (him) competitive." They seem to think that
anyone polling less than fifteen percent doesn’t have a
realistic shot at the presidency. If so, then what is the F.E.C.
afraid of? While it is realistic that there should be some threshold
of qualification for entering the debates, Nader and Buchanan
are not alone in requesting a review of the debate guidelines.
In a June news conference, Teamster president James P. Hoffa
announced that he wants to see Nader and Buchanan included in
the televised debates. Even if they don't have a "realistic"
chance, they would at least force the major candidates to stop
playing issue avoidance. An article in Time magazine has also
backed their appeal to enter the debates, in order to avoid
what the author refers to as an otherwise "excruciating"
debacle. Gore and Bush claim that they’re not afraid of
the alternates, so why not include them? Leaving them out puts
the fairness and accountability of these debates in question.
Raising another troublesome issue, Nader has recently filed
a lawsuit against the F.E.C. for accepting millions of dollars
in corporate sponsorship of the debates. The lawsuit states
that "unlawful corporate contributions to the debates corrupts
the political process, tilts the electoral playing field sharply
toward the Democratic and Republican parties, undermining third
parties and limiting the choices of voters." Nader considers
this a violation of federal laws prohibiting corporate contributions
to campaigns.
The standard theoretical argument for favoring two-party politics
is to disallow a plurality win (a win by less than fifty percent
of the vote) so as not to 'confuse' the voters. Somehow, though,
many countries do manage to hold successful multi-party elections
without sacrificing choice for the sake of 'stupidity'. Even
with a fifty-one percent win, up to forty-nine percent of the
voters may feel unrepresented.
The apathy in this country can easily be relegated to the belief
that the American people don’t care or are lazy. A better
analysis would recognize that these people don't vote because
standard politicians don’t represent them. This sentiment
is supported in the 1994 film Manufacturing Consent. It points
out that, in Europe, approximately half the population votes
for one of the reformist labor-based parties: socialist, labor,
communist. This is roughly equal to the number of people that
don't vote in the U.S. each election.
Though it remains a popular misconception, voting for a third
party candidate is not a wasted vote; it signals defiance to
politics as usual. A vote of support for a major party candidate
who is the lesser of two evils signals only recurring defeat
and subservience to the Republicrats. A vote against these major
parties is concrete evidence of an active citizenry unhappy
with the way things are. It makes politicians pay attention
and lays the groundwork for a new way. For even if they don’t
win, if Nader or Buchanan get above five percent of the vote
their parties will receive federal matching funds and aid from
the government in the next election, and will keep their ballot
access in many states.
The common perception today is that the Democrats and the GOP
are the integral and inescapable components of American politics.
This is not the way it's always been. Keep in mind that there
have been numerous parties throughout American history. Even
the Republicans were once a nascent party, first organized in
the mid-nineteenth century to abolish slavery.
John Adams once wrote, "there is nothing which I dread
so much as the division of the Republic into two great parties,
each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition
to each other. This in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded
as the greatest political evil under our constitution."
Bibliography:
Mazmanian, Daniel. Third Parties in Presidential Elections.
Washington, D.C.: Brookings, 1974.
McCarthy, Eugene J. The Ultimate Tyranny. New York: Harcourt,
Brace, & Jovanavich, 1980.
Monroe, Bill. "The Slow Poisoning of the First Amendment."
Cato’s Letters 7. Washington D.C.:
Cato, 1990.
Powe, Lucas Jr. American Broadcasting and the First Amendment.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987.
Contact Information:
Federal Election Commission
999 E Street, NW
Washington, DC 20463
(800) 424-9530
In Washington: (202) 694-1100
For the hearing impaired:
TTY (202) 219-3336
http://www.fec.gov
|
