Two-Party Problems
In the 2016 presidential election, to vote for any candidate that is not Hillary Clinton is the equivalent or voting for Trump. It’s tragic that our rigid two-party system quashes the viability of any and all third-party candidates. Whether we like it or not, our political system is run by the political and financial machines that are the Democratic and Republican party.
In an election with stakes as high as this one, in which we risk putting a racist demagogue into office, refusing to vote or voting for a third candidate has the same effect on the election as voting for Trump. Republican abstainers need to realize that the only way to kill the wing of their party that brought Trump to power is to destroy it. Libertarians need to realize that Gary Johnson’s 10% is nowhere near a majority and will not get any closer before election day. Green Partiers need to stop being so “kumbaya” and wake up and realize that Trump will be significantly less receptive of their hyper-liberal ideals than Clinton.
Admittedly, in certain states individual votes make almost no difference. Voting for Trump in Massachusetts will have no effect on the general election. The state is so overwhelmingly Democratic that any vote for a candidate other than Clinton will easily be negated. The same principle applies to deep red states, such as Mississippi and Alabama. In states with more electoral significance however, the difference between the two main candidates can be miniscule. In tight races, the difference between a victory and a loss could be bridged easily by increasing turnout and preventing third parties from siphoning away votes. All voting for third parties can achieve in a two-party system is to ensure one party loses, rather than ensuring the victory of their chosen third party. It’s clearly more beneficial to society to vote for the lesser of two evils than to pursue the pipe dream of electing a third party candidate.
All voting for third parties can achieve in a two-party system is to ensure one party loses, rather than ensuring the victory of their chosen third party.
Those who think that a Trump presidency is worse than a Clinton one yet refuse to vote in an effort to gain some moral high ground and self satisfaction are doing their whole nation a disservice. They are being selfish, in knowingly placing their own smugness over the wellbeing of the nation. While American culture promotes individualism and freedom endlessly, the state of the nation and the government undoubtedly have an effect on all of us. The nation has more of an effect on some citizens than on others. A Trump presidency will clearly affect Muslim citizens more than upper-middle class white citizens who will likely fare decently well regardless of what president is elected. This is clear to anyone who has observed this election cycle and found Trump’s rhetoric to be repugnant. Anyone who abstains from voting or votes for a third candidate understanding just how much worse a Trump presidency will be for certain voters will be complicit in the destruction of their livelihoods if Trump were to win.
In a perfect world, our electoral options would not be limited by two political parties that make decisions to ensure their survival rather than to serve the will of the electorate that brings their candidates to power. The ideologies of a nation as large and diverse as our own obviously cannot be lumped into two categories. Its sad that many people in our nation are being forced to choose between two candidates they aren’t particularly enthusiastic about.
However, just because we don’t like something doesn’t mean that it isn’t the way things are. It’s too late in this election cycle to break the hold of the two-party system. Anyone who believes otherwise is delusional. Those who would like to have more viable options in future races should accept that third party candidates aren’t viable this time around, but take the misery of this election and use it as an impetus to institute political change over the next four years.
It’s good to demand more of the institutions that affect our lives, but to create real change, realism is just as necessary as idealism.