This is the presidential election. Two sides, locked in battle over the social, economic and foreign policies, fighting to determine the future of our country. Two candidates, each with unique backgrounds, striving to appear charismatic, appealing and strong to gain the confidence of American citizens.
Or at least, that's how the campaign process is generally portrayed. And yet, this version leaves out the significant detail that there is an entire host of candidates running for the chance to sit in the Oval Office. While average voters know that other candidates and independent parties exist, their platforms, opinions and values remain a mystery for the most part. More cynically-minded voters often frame their election decision as choosing "the lesser of two evils," while being actively apathetic towards the many independent party candidates available on the ballot. It doesn't help that these third- or fourth-party candidates get almost no media attention and must instead rely on voters to actively research their policies.
Take, for instance, Libertarian party nominee Gary Johnson. The Libertarian following is arguably the biggest and most popular outside of the familiar dichotomy of Democrats and Republicans, coming into the spotlight even more this election due to Ron Paul's fairly strong candidacy. Johnson strikes a partisan balance by being fiscally conservative and socially progressive, with policies that include legalizing marijuana, facilitating rather than inhibiting immigration and cutting the Department of Education's funding to allow decisions to be made on a local level. He advocates immediate troop withdrawal and cutting military spending by 43 percent, and he opposes the Patriot Act, something both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama have advocated extending. On many issues, like drug legalization and harm reduction, he offers an alternative platform not embraced by either of the two most popular candidates.
Yet despite being the representative of the third largest political party in the United States, Johnson has received negligible coverage from the mainstream media, and many Americans would be hard-pressed to identify any of his policies. The same is true of other presidential candidates, like Jill Stein, the Green Party presidential nominee, who advocates breaking up banks like Bank of America, forgiving all existing student debt, passing federal marriage equality and focusing more national resources on clean energy. With media outlets ignoring the often-valid alternatives offered by these candidates in favor of discussing the most minor verbal gaffes Romney and Obama commit - it is difficult to see the election as anything other than a two-party race.
Realistically, national support is divided so evenly between Republicans and Democrats that there is next to no chance of other parties gaining a significant foothold in the political process. But we should not collectively assume these are our only options. There are many reasons people give for not voting for independent candidates - in particular that it "wastes" a vote, because the candidates don't stand a chance of winning, and it takes a vote away from the mainstream candidate the voter prefers. This prompts people to vote only for the two biggest parties, further minimizing the role of side parties - and so on, in a spiral that enforces the two-party race paradigm. Ultimately, it's a personal decision to place your vote where you think it will have the most value and meaning. But we strongly urge readers, as the November election looms on the horizon, to remember that our political system was designed with more than two parties in mind.
Editorials are written by The Herald's editorial page board. Send comments to editorials@browndailyherald.com.
