In 2004, around 40 percent of those who voted for Kerry-Edwards admitted little to no interest in a Kerry presidency. Kerry was not offering voters choice on important policy issues nor did his candidacy stimulate the kind of broad, probing public discussion of policy that characterizes real democratic process. The core of the Kerry campaign message seemed to be: Me not Bush!, and the substance a rather confusing year of political wind surfing. (article from 2004)
In 2007, the votes seem to be in already on 2008. Two-thirds of the voting public are dissatisfied with the “two party system.” (See Zogby poll) The only reasonable interpretation is that only about one third are satisfied with being represented by either party. Elections have been close lately; so we can roughly estimate: each of the two “major parties” has the support of about 15 percent of American voters.
To me, the candidates come off like a pre-Star Wars sci-fi movie. They’re involved in a sensational political discussion but their tricks and special effects are not convincing. They’re relying on material that their 15 percent desperately wants to believe is this era’s contribution to the classics – but which is seen largely as pathetic obfuscation by the more sophisticated audiences that make up the majority. Return of the Jedi it isn’t. Night of the Living Dead – maybe.
By a very large margin, Americans want constitutional rule rather than rule by two non-representative political parties. Candidates know that, which is why they have been pledging support for the Constitution in speeches and on their websites. But candidates from the “major parties” have the baggage of having been in power while the constitutional system was being dismantled for the sake of greater party power and corruption; so their pledges are far from credible.
With such a great majority disinterested or strongly dissatisfied with the two parties, it would seem democracy would find a way. But the de facto two-party system has been in operation for a long time and it is a difficult habit to kick. Some percent of voters will still be convinced that voting for a “third party” is throwing their vote away – a logic that is only valid if there are two parties with over-whelming support.
As I discuss this problem, I find people who acknowledge it; but think it is too late to do anything about it. Just as I have heard in many elections before – not this time. Too much is at stake. We have to win. Win what? I must ask. Supporting candidates and a party that you do not believe in – how does that help you win?
The solution is simple. The Republican and Democratic parties should be renamed; “Third Party A” and “Third Party B” to reflect the minority of actual support they have. That will provide a much more natural way for the majority of voters to understand the math.
