IN THE 2000 presidential election, Ralph Nader received over 2.8 million votes and significantly altered the political landscape, yet despite Nader's legions of supporters nationwide, asinine laws in many states are currently forcing the Independent candidate to wage war just to get his name on the 2004 presidential ballot. While pretentious Democrats and Republicans will spend the next eight months squabbling over trivial character issues and even deriding Nader's legitimacy, no one besides Nader's out-gunned volunteers will pay much heed to the disgraceful state of representative democracy in the United States.
Nader is spending this week in Texas and Oklahoma, rallying support not for his presidency itself, but for the simple privilege of appearing on the ballot. Every state boasts its own set of regulations governing elections procedure -- some make it relatively easy to run for office and some throw up considerable barriers. Texas, to no one's surprise, makes things tough.
To run for president in the Lone Star state, Nader must collect 65,000 signatures, a figure high by national standards but certainly within reason. However, an added caveat dictates that these signatures cannot come from citizens who voted in either a Republican or Democratic primary. Thus, Texas offers voters a simple choice: support the allowance of a third-party candidate or stick with the establishment and shut up. Unfortunately, the decision is not so simple.
Texas' regulations are reflective of a notion pervasive nationwide that says support for the two-party system is the only route for viable politics, and that anyone who shows interest in a third-party or even the idea of a plurality of parties necessarily separates themselves from "real" politics. Today the Democrats and Republicans are indeed the only pragmatic options. The overwhelming amount of financial and doctrinaire support for the major parties renders third-party success impossible. However, for this limited notion of democracy to be inculcated via formal rules and regulations is ridiculous.
Anyone conscious of basic American history knows that a strict two-party dynasty has not always been the norm. Not until the early 1900s did the Democrats and Republicans lock America into a consistent two-party race, and even then they faced competition from other viable groups. This could, and should, happen again.
Ralph Nader represents a democratic ideal that has fallen by the wayside -- the concept that voters should be able to choose a candidate who best addresses their political concerns. The two-party system forces Americans to subvert our beliefs. It tells us that if we take a stand on one hot-button issue we have effectively chosen a position on every question at hand. Support abortion rights? Then you necessarily must back affirmative action and welfare. In favor of lower taxes? You must be behind war in Iraq and school prayer.
What's worse, the Democrats and Republicans regularly utilize scare tactics to engender steadfast support in their constituencies. Every election becomes a battle between good and evil, each Senate seat represents the fate of millions of starving children and the moral soul of the country. Of course, in reality, not even a four-year presidential term makes much difference -- history shows that with the snail's pace at which government moves, little actual change is enacted despite all the lofty promises and ethical assertions of politicians.
Yet America seems unable to shake the two-party spell. Every election year, voters resign themselves to selecting "the lesser of two evils." And while it is highly unlikely that representative democracy will ever produce a slate of candidates from which any voter can choose a perfect match, there is no question that most Americans would be better served by a larger field of reasonable options.
No matter how they threaten to muck up the pristine appearance of bipolar politics, it is in the best interest of healthy American politics to break down barriers that bar the way of upstart politicians. Even candidates with little to no prospect of victory can force major parties to address less traditional issues, and can pave the way for a day when contenders without the rudimentary tag of Democrat or Republican emblazoned on their foreheads will stand a chance of representing a populace tired of being forced to discredit their own beliefs.
The federal government has already shown itself more than willing to extend its bounds in tyrannizing state's rights. While federal regulations butt in on drinking age and television content, they fail to address issues that actually pertain to upholding the basic functionality of our democracy. There should be simple, reasonable, national standards regulating the procedure for entering a presidential race. While we can only hope that Americans will eventually free themselves from the delusion that there can be only two viable parties, we can righteously demand laws that preserve the open nature of representative government. After all, this is a democracy.
Nick Chapin's column appears Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at nchapin@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 3 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
