Everyone knows the story of The Emperor’s New Clothes. Two charlatans promulgated a spectacular swindle on an Emperor. They promised fine costumes and produced nothing at all. When a peasant child declared the obvious his father asked, “Did you ever hear such innocent prattle?”

Today the major political parties are promulgating a similar swindle on the American people-the “two-party system.” When third party or independent candidates seek partisan office the pundits employ such pejoratives as “spoiler” and “wasted vote.”

We have ample evidence the two-party system is not meeting the needs of Americans. Polls reveal a steady decline in voter participation, a lack of trust in government, and a desire for alternatives.

A Pew Research Center report entitled, “In Search of Ideologues in America,” identifies four political philosophies of government. Roughly 33% of the public falls into the well known “liberal” or “conservative” philosophical camps. Another 25% agree with the lesser known “libertarian” or “populist” philosophies even though they do not self-identify that way.

However, ever since the early 20th century America’s election system has frustrated libertarian and populist candidates. Self-interested legislators set up ballot access hurdles that require third party candidates to spend precious time and money to simply appear on the ballot. Some candidates who make the grade are then persecuted with lawsuits. In 2004 the Democrats sued to take Ralph Nader off the ballot in ten states including Washington.

Politically motivated gerrymandering of election districts by those already in power reduce or eliminate political competition. In 2003 the Maine Supreme Court approved a redistricting plan that eliminated the legislative district held by a Green Party representative. Campaign finance laws are highly expensive and time consuming. Third parties and their candidates must also spend sparse resources to avoid penalties for non-compliance.

Thus 25% of the voters typically do not have a candidate to vote for, and must vote against someone or not vote. The available choice often borders on the meaningless. In 2006, two major newspapers in Washington assessed the US Senate race between Democrat Maria Cantwell and Republican Mike McGavick as “dull” or “a contrast of moderates.” Noted historian Andrew C. McLaughlin observed, “Nothing is more plain to the student of history than the tendency of one party [in a two party system] to assimilate the principles and the policies of its opponent.”

There has been a general failure to recognize the fundamental function of elections in a democracy, which is to encourage open exchange of ideas about public policy. Instead a pernicious propaganda is promulgated: those who vote for third party candidates are “wasting votes” and those who run as third party candidates are “spoilers.”

There is nothing intrinsic to a “(D)” or an “(R)” placed after a name that makes that candidate any more qualified than a candidate with a “(G)” or an “(L)” after her name. Yet everyone except those affiliated with a third party acts as if it were so.

The current system ignores the “marketplace-of-ideas” element of elections. It treats candidates not as rational or moral beings but as if they were racehorses-all that matters is who wins. It is not the brilliant, creative or visionary candidate who wins; it is the well-financed, glib and telegenic candidate. But of course there is more at stake. We expect our leaders to reflect our values. And we tell our leaders what we value by voting for candidates who articulate those values.

There is more than one reason to vote. There is nothing philosophically or morally wrong with voting for a candidate one agrees with even if that candidate may not win. We all know there is something wrong with voting for the lesser of two evils. Nonetheless we use a system that expects voters to do exactly that.

When voters accept the twin myths of “spoilers” and “wasted votes” they are left with a “dull” race between a “contrast of moderates.” Those who argue that third parties deprive the voters of a “majority” winner raise a straw man when the real culprit is the election system. Guaranteeing a majority winner is as simple as adopting a transferable vote system.

The result of suppressing the marketplace model in elections is obvious; a decline in voter participation, a lack of trust in government, and a desire for alternatives. But as Lord Acton sagely put it, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Those in power are interested in retaining power, not in the free exchange of ideas or in voter satisfaction. The current election system is swindling the voters, as the Emperor and his subjects were swindled, and voters will continue to get swindled until they see that elections are for the exchange of ideas, and not as horse races.

All copyrights reserved. Contact author for permission to publish.
Richard Shepard – 253-383-2235 www.shepardelectionlaw.com