Saturday, November 9, 2013
Two Parties, Zero Sense
The other day a friend of mine made the statement that he dislikes Libertarians because we have a two party system and they steal votes from Republicans. I disagree with this thinking for a number of reasons. I think the two party system has done great damage to our nation and that you shouldn't have to vote for a "lesser of two evils" to make an impact.
If you agree with everything or even a majority of what a Democrat or Republican stands for, then you should vote for them. What if you don't though? Is everyone that's for lower taxes also against gay marriage? If you support certain social programs do you also have to support abortion? I'd like to think that people aren't as cookie cutter as that. Voting straight party is about as cookie cutter as it gets. It requires little thinking and no looking at things on an issue by issue basis. That's almost robotic.
Now let's take into account that both parties have led us to the place we are today. Both have led to increased government and excessive debt. Would a true fiscal conservative vote for that? Both parties have led to terrible foreign policy and bombing nations that never attacked us. Why vote for them if you disagree with these policies? The lesser of two evils? Sometimes it's hard to tell which is the lesser when they're both so bad. Voting for the lesser of two evils is basically deciding on which party you want to rape you. You just have to decide which one will be less unpleasant, but really is any rape pleasant?
Recently Ken Cuccinelli lost the Virginia governor election to Terry McAuliffe. Republicans were quick to blame it on votes "stolen" by Libertarian candidate Robert Sarvis. There's no such thing as stolen votes. No candidate owns these votes. Sarvis didn't sneak into Cuccinelli's place one night and find them in his sock drawer along with his secret porn stash, (don't worry we won't tell Santorum). These were votes that Cuccinelli didn't earn. Maybe Republicans should look at the extremely small voter turnout or the GOP's currently low approval rating. A third party didn't lose the election for Cuccinelli, that blame lies elsewhere.
Why would someone want a two party system? Since when do people want less options? It's like when you have only one or two cable providers in an area. The service is usually shit. Democrats and Republicans are basically like those shitty cable providers. When you think they're the only options you settle for them. You end up voting for people that you never would if you really stuck to your ideals. When Bush was in office many Republicans disliked McCain because of his criticisms of Bush. They also thought he was too moderate but in 2008 he was their man and every Republican had a copy of "Faith of My Fathers" sitting in their bathroom. Republicans once called Romney a RINO and the engineer of Romneycare. In 2012 they touted him as a smart conservative and great businessman. Then there's Obama, who bombed Libya and extended the Patriot Act. War and the Patriot Act were two huge issues for Democrats during Bush's term but they mean much less to them now that Obama has done the same. People gave up on their "convictions" instead of looking for a third party that suits them better. They voted on (R) or (D) instead of on the issues. That's what a two party system gives you.
Maybe people like less options when it comes to voting. Maybe they like it simple and don't necessarily care about the results as much as they like to complain about them. Though maybe someday people will want more options. Maybe they'll grow a little backbone and vote on issues as opposed to canned cookie cutter parties or the "lesser of two evils".