Let me begin by saying that I have no pretensions of changing anyone’s mind; if only one person reconsiders his or her opinion based on what I write here, I will consider myself a success.

I read an editorial reposted by one of the forum’s more notorious characters just a moment ago and came across this particular line:

“Clearly you’re not a fan of either party, but picking the lesser of two evils is still your civic duty.”

WHAT?

Excuse me, but the notion that there is a civic duty to vote for evil of some kind is patently moronic. Would we, after all, suggest that in a hypothetical election between Hitler and Stalin, we would still have to vote for either Hitler or Stalin on the basis that one of these two genocidal tyrants was the lesser of evil? Would we feel obligated to pick between Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein? Kim Jong-un and Bashar al-Assad? Surely we would be repelled by this prospect.

If that is the case, then why, election after election, do we continue to go vote for one of two political parties that represent neither the interests or the actual political positions of most Americans? Once you strip away differences on questions of social policy and certain issues, we find the same agenda at the heart of both parties: stifling democratic competition, continuing to use government largesse for the benefit of corporate donors, continued foreign interventions, no meaningful action on climate change, etc. Why do Americans continue to believe that there are only these two choices and only ever will be these two choices?

Many reasons for this, of course. Chief among them is that “you’re wasting your vote” if you vote for a third party. However, this is an inherently fallacious position: if no one ever “wastes a vote” on a third party candidate, then we will continue to perpetuate the two-party duopoly. Sure, Duverger’s law states that our electoral system is geared towards a two party, but this is by no means a constant. Britain and Canada have an electoral system that operates roughly like others, but they have vibrant third parties. 

But why do these third parties succeed? The answer is money: not necessarily in terms of personal and corporate donations, but public financing. In Canada, for example, parties that perform well enough are entitled to public financing, meaning that third parties can compete more effectively. This is true in the United States too, but the bar is comparatively high: 5% of the vote in the most recent presidential election. This might not seem like a lot, but when you consider that 5% of the 2008 turnout would be slightly more than 6.5 million votes, this is a tremendous uphill battle for a third party. Third parties are traditionally obliged to spend much of their small treasuries on gaining ballot access (for such is generally not guaranteed), leaving them with scant funds for advertising.

So what’s the point of all of this? I suggest to you that if you are truly tired of the Democrats and the Republicans and if you want to see something other than politics as usual, then “waste your vote” on a third party candidate.

I don’t care who it is- Green, Libertarian, Constitution, whoever. But these are all parties that have their own platforms that, while they vastly differ from each other, nevertheless offer a clear alternative to the stagnant status quo advocated by the mainstream parties. And all one of them needs is 5% of the vote in this election to get public financing for the 2016 elections. Public financing will then give whichever parties qualify a fair shot at taking on the Democrats and Republicans nationally- and, for the first time in more than a century, perhaps create a true multiparty system in this country.

Do I think this is realistic? I am naturally a pessimist, but I believe that change can happen if we want it to. If we do waste our votes this time and strike a blow against the two-party duopoly, I am confident our children and grandchildren will thank us.

Why? Because, at this time of great crisis and confusion in our country, we will have breathed life back into the political crisis. Nations fall when they cease to innovate and to dream. We must again dare to dream: even if it means breaking free from the status quo that has ruled for so long.

Comments? I welcome them.