At the time this article is being written, it appears mathematically certain that George W. Bush has won a second term as president. Republicans have declared victory. John Edwards has made a short televised appearance assuring at least one more day's wait before a Kerry concession; and vowing to keep their campaign promise that “every vote counts and all the votes will be counted.” It is understood that armies of lawyers are waiting in the wings in case the Kerry camp chooses to repeat Al Gore's protracted yet failed attempt in 2000 to win in court what he failed to win in the election.

Should Kerry Drop Out? It has been just over seven months since publication of another article by this title. The first dealt with the very serious problem that Kerry's candidacy was not democratic. “He could tell us honestly that the Democrat's participation in the competition between the two partisan powers has nothing to do with democracy and walk away.”

Polls have supported this – perhaps difficult to digest – point of view. 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.

As a result, around 40 percent of Kerry voters admitted casting their votes against George Bush rather than for John Kerry. What a sorry state democracy is in when so many voters are not casting their votes for a candidate they believe in. And did they really listen to the bewildering arguments? The enemy in the War Against Terrorism has not been cooperative. Kerry would face a fanatic enemy bent on destroying the West through diplomacy. George Bush is not the choice of the people of France. Kerry would do more to keep the country safe and it would be cost free – no wouldn't – no would – no wouldn't. Doesn't matter – whatever you prefer to think – Me not Bush!.

The people of the United States are rightfully proud of their democratic history. This oldest existing democracy has been powerful enough to help develop and maintain democracy in other parts of the world. Ironically, we do not do enough to maintain our own. Our system is not formally designed to account for political parties. We vote for individual candidates. Yet obviously, our process is completely dominated by partisan politics. Its great weakness is that it is dominated by only two parties. The voices of other political parties would provide the broad, probing policy and ideological discussions that we really need.

It is equally obvious that little attention is paid to the so-called “third parties;” a term that accentuates the reality of our de facto “two party system.” Ralph Nader got more media attention than any other “spoiler candidate.” While focusing too much on the stock, shallow Internet chat-room phrases of the young and impressionable far-left, railing against the evil power of “corporate America,” Nader did manage occasionally to hit an important nail directly on the head. We would benefit from changing to a proportional partisan system; one in which even small but significant support from voters would result in a small but significant number of seats in legislative bodies held by the party of their choice. This then would finally lead to real political inclusiveness and a more serious democratic process.

The two parties of course have developed stock defenses. I have been in debates where two-party defenders have confused the discussion with long complicated mathematical treatises on reapportionment – not the issue. When trapped into more serious debate, they claim that proportional representation produces political instability. In fact, the only political instability it has produced in most countries that use the system is in destabilizing political monopoly – an entirely positive effect that is essential to real democracy.

Italy is nearly always mentioned. The Italians use a proportional system and governments seem to change more quickly than your wife's shoes. But Italy has faced other serious political problems that are the cause of rapid power shifts. The ability to make changes democratically reduces the legitimacy of alternative forms of turf wars. It offers change through the ballot as the better alternative to the more violent and protracted process that has been faced by many Americans when the two parties have aligned themselves against various social groups – ethnic minorities being our most indelible example.

Perhaps the most offensive response in the two-party play book, is the insistence that limiting political choice through dramatically restricted participation of alternative parties is responsible for stability rather than the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and particularly the individual rights that are designed to limit the power of political parties to control our lives.

The ineffectiveness of the Kerry-Edwards campaign to capture support in proportion to the votes it received is the strongest possible evidence that Americans want and need a wider range of choice. Along with choice will come the kind of policy and ideological debate that democracy needs to remain healthy. In order to create that choice in the United States, the people must wrestle control from the two parties. The alternative choice is to remain hypnotized by the two-party view that voting against the other guy is in some way as democratic as voting for someone who actually represents your views and ideals regarding the use of power.

Roger F. Gay