Defeating Duopoly Ideology One Misconception, Prejudice and Mystification at a Time: Third Party FAQ

In excellent piece at Slaven Says, independent Chris Slaven has put together a handy Third Party FAQ that covers everything from misconceptions about the constitutional structure of the US political system, to the prejudices and mystifications of duopoly ideology, the necessity of ballot access reform and the herd mentality that aids the reproduction of the Democratic-Republican two-party state. The whole thing is well worth a read. Here are some excerpts:

The Founding Fathers obviously wanted a two-party system; that’s why they put it in the Constitution.

Political parties are unrelated to the Constitution. It does not prohibit them, but neither did it create them. It would be equally constitutional to have one hundred political parties, three, two, one, or none at all. . . .

Even if they’re legal, what’s the point of third parties? You have to be either conservative or liberal; Republican or Democrat. There is no gray area.

That makes about as much sense as saying someone has to be either white or black, and all of those Asians and Latinos are just confused. Nonsense! Compare it to geometry. Is our universe a single line? Can everything be described as being on the left or on the right? Of course not. Just as the world has many dimensions, so does political thought. . . .

Third parties represent legitimate views that aren’t adequately represented by either of the two major parties. But, obviously, Americans aren’t interested in third parties. We vote either Republican or Democrat, and that’s why those are the two major parties.

Not exactly. There was a time (long ago) when the average man could run for office, as a member of any party, or none at all, and still stand a chance of winning. Especially at the local level. . . . But Republicans and Democrats began to work together (for once) to restrict ballot access. Now, if any other party wants to appear on a ballot, it must collect thousands of signatures per state. The same goes for individual candidates. They spend so much time trying to get on the ballot that they hardly have a chance to get their message out to voters. . . .

Okay, so I’ve studied a third-party platform, and I agree with it. I think this Libertarian (or Constitution, Independent, Green, whatever) candidate would be a good representative. But he has no chance of winning. If I vote for him, I’ll just have wasted my vote.

The only wasted vote is the one cast for a candidate you don’t believe in. . . .

I’d rather vote for the lesser of two evils, and have a chance of winning. I don’t want to vote for a third-party candidate and help the greater of two evils to win! If you’re voting for “evil” in the first place, you’re doing wrong. This view is short-sighted; it suggests that we should place more importance on the Democrat-Republican conflict of the next two to four years, than on the long-term benefits of, possibly, transferring support from a misguided major party to a principled third party. . . .

Even if we were to enact fair ballot access laws, and all political parties were equal, it would be bad for the country. We can hardly get anything done with two parties, let alone three, five, or more!

The two major parties are the cause of partisan gridlock; it could not possibly be worse if there were three or five major parties, particularly if each was similar in size and influence. Imagine a political process free of today’s chains of “right” and “left;” in which several competing ideologies would be forced to work together and make compromises. There would no longer be two sides, with each calling itself “right” and the other “wrong”. There would be several sides, each of which might share common ground with other parties. . . .

Well, if everyone would start voting for third-party candidates, so would I.

Then if everyone decapitated themselves in the hopes of being taken to Heaven by a flaming UFO, you would probably join them. Conformity for its own sake is sickening, and an obstacle to progress . . . .