In response to hulk’s recent rant about the Democrats, the obvious solution seems to be a multi-party system. That way everyone could match their personal criteria to one of several candidates, instead of picking one issue that ends up determining their status. Like going to Starbucks and saying “I’d like this drink, with this kind of milk, with this kind of flavor, in this size, and I want it hot/iced/with sprinkles/with whipped cream/with strippers.” Starbucks is a successful empire because their product is good and because they have a system that allows for customization, and America seems to love customization.
In a viable multi-party system, one could say, “well, I’m anti-abortion, so I’m not a Democrat, but I’m anti-gun, so I’m not a Republican either. I like to support environmental initiatives, but I also support smaller government, and this makes me a [insert fourth or fifth party's name here]. I’m going to go vote now!” Northern Ireland, for example, has at least four major political parties. Most fall on one side or the other of the old British/Republic of Ireland line, but on each side of that line there are still multiple issues to have opinions on. A multi-party system allows people to match their candidate on more than just one or two issues.
But given the strength of third parties in this country (laughable at best), I doubt the dual-party system is gonna change soon. Nope, instead of having multiple choices, politically we’re still Coke or Pepsi, Democrat or Republican.
We DO use a multi-party system. In fact, legally, you can have any number of parties you want. When you vote, you can vote for whatever candidate/party you want. I even know someone who, when he did not agree with any of the candidates, voted for himself. That’s right, himself. Don’t laugh – at least he voted. Oh sure, there are plenty of excuses for the non-voters out there including “I don’t agree with X-person or Y-party,� claiming that no one fits their ideals or their morals or has nice hair or they really don’t know how the Electoral College works because they either genuinely don’t know or have been gathering all their important information from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.
However, that’s a whole different beef entirely. Let’s get back to topic here in that every time we have another election, the party’s opinions change and everyone gets all out of sorts about it. The party opinions change for two main reasons. The first main reason is for what Hulk stated, and that’s because the parties want votes so they’ll do whatever they can to grab as many people as possible, and they waffle around trying to sideswipe any innocent bystander they can. This has gotten so bad that no voter really knows who stands for what issues other than abortion and Iraq. You’re laughing as you read this, but you know it’s true because you’ve met hundreds of people who vote solely on the abortion issue. Figuring out anything else during the elections is like trying to read a Japanese VCR manual. The second reason, and this is what I really want everyone to pay attention to, is because every time you have a new candidate, that person has completely different ideas from you. Let’s face it, you don’t agree with the people sitting next to you or the ones living next door to you or the ones you are friends with – not 100%. There are millions of people living here, and you are never going to completely agree with them on every single issue. Ever. So it really doesn’t matter if we go with a multi-party voting system like France or if we stick with what we have now – you’re never going to completely agree with any candidate in any election, so there’s never going to be the Starbucks method of voting. There just won’t be. Ever. And in case it ever does happen and I eat my words, I’ll tell you this: You may find a party that you agree with at least 90%, but you won’t agree with the means to bring those ideals about, or if you do, you won’t agree on the why of those issues. Now we’re back to square one.
No two people are alike, and we’re all going to think differently. So every time we have a new election and a new candidate, that candidate will have different ideals, agendas and issues. It’s like we’re waiting around for the perfect candidate to come along and fit all our criteria – the what, the how, the why of every single issue. We all think differently and want different things for all different reasons. Following candidates and all of the different things that they think becomes too confusing to follow or remember. Well, unless it’s abortion and Iraq.
Sadly enough, this is one of the biggest reasons people do not vote: They do not, can not, or simply will not take the time out to find out what the new candidate’s views are. It’s irritating to wade through the media to find out what candidates are really about, especially when it changes all the time. What people really want is to have a handful of parties with set ideals and issue stances assigned to them, so we can easily choose from election to election and not have to really think about it or even follow the candidates and debates. In a perfect world, this would be the way to do it. Unfortunately, it isn’t realistic or good. As the times change and new issues and conflicts arise, our ideas and ideals change. At least, they should. So should the candidates, who should not be constrained by the mandates of a party – instead, the party should be flexible with the new ideas of each candidate so there can be a new visions and ideas to tackle the latest demands of the times.
The only solution is the hardest: Everyone needs to get off their asses and figure out who stands for what, and then vote for what you feel is most important, knowing that no two people think alike.
June 20th, 2005, at 3:29 pm #