Once again Rush and many others are decrying the growing movement towards a third party. I understand this sentiment from a strategic standpoint, but I do not agree that their stratagems are properly thought out. For a strategic political maneuver, a third party is essential. Not to mention a third party will be necessary for most people to truly begin to vote as they were meant to, for a representative, not a politician or the “lesser of two evils”.

Let us start with the points where I agree with most 3rd party opponents. I firmly believe, as do Rush and others, that the only way to truly waste a vote is to not cast it. The persons whose opposition to a third party is some misguided notion that a “vote strike” is the way to send a message are sadly mistaken. Not voting sends an unclear message at best, and likely its real message will be that you do not care and are allowing others to make your decisions for you. This will always be taken advantage of by power seekers.

the other agreed upon point is that both major political parties have become corrupt and support, to some extent, a large and growing government. I think there is little difference between the parties and that opposition to policies by one party is more motivated by partisanship and political games than real ideals. This is evidenced by the fact that whichever party is in power seems to be pushing much of what the other party did when they were in power. It seems little more than a shell game and a false pretence of having different ideals. It may indeed be that there is some difference in the parties and that, for instance, the Republican opposition to the health care bill is based on some real ideals that support keeping health care in the private sector rather than just game playing or vying for specific changes but an overall similar result. I don’t really care if that is the case because, in the end, it remains a lesser of two evils situation, with no real good choice in sight. It is a false dichotomy, offering two bad choices and attempting to force a decision, rather than allowing all options on the table. As I said, however, it is agreed that both sides need to change, especially the conservative side, as they are the ones most inconsistent.

From an idealism standpoint, I support the idea of a third party because I believe people should be able to vote for the person who best represents them, not the person they think can win strategically. I have not problem with political strategy as most of you know, and I think it is a necessity, but I also believe that voting your conscience is a good thing, and people should be able to do that. Voting the lesser of two evils simply perpetuates evil, there should be a good option to vote for. IF such an option showed up with a D or an R by their name, then that is great, but until that happens, a third party candidate should be an option.

I could go more into the idealism side of this argument, but that is not the primary point of disagreement, so let us get to the heart of the matter: political strategy.

The idea of “fixing” the Republican party is absurd without having any real way to accomplish this. It is well and good to say that we should simply vote in real conservatives or freedom lovers or supporters of small government into the Republican party, thereby taking advantage of the party name, voter loyalty, resources, etc. to win an election. It is true that a third party has a massive uphill battle trying to win an election without those things. The problem is, the system that is in place does not offer any persons up for election that fit the bill of reforming the party. There is no motivation for the RNC to change its candidates or for the candidates themselves to change their ways without a threat that has teeth. Thus, it is as much a pipe dream that we can “fix” the major political parties without a real threat as it is that a third party will suddenly take over Washington. Part of the point of voting third party is to take votes away from the leadership that is bad. I refuse to waste my vote by not casting it, since that does not send a clear message, and I refuse to vote for the other major party simply to punish the other party since that sends a message of support to the opposing party. The only way to send a real message to our representatives is to vote for a candidate whose positions on the issues we actually like, taking votes from the party we want to fix. This process may take some time, but it is the only way to effect any real change. Anything else is an empty threat or a confusing message.

The reactionary response to this is, of course, that it will ensure the victory of the greater of two evils by splitting the vote. That is true. However, we have to stop thinking of our country two years at a time. If our strategy does not look farther into the future, it will fail. The Progressive movement did not bring us to the horrid point we are at overnight, it took a lot of time and patience to get us to this place we find ourselves. Reactionary thinking is no competition for long term stratagems. As horrible as it may be to endure another two or four years of bad leadership, it will be a quicker fix than continuing to hope for our favorite party to change.

Another reason it is strategically expedient to vote third party is that corruption is so firmly ensconced in the existing parties that rooting it all out will take a lot of time, even if decent candidates began to propagate the party. Shaking up the Washington system will be much easier with a true newcomer with some real unpredictability. Furthermore, corruption in a newly reformed party could kill growing support among the disenfranchised. Starting fresh is not a bad move when the existing system is so broken. Sometimes a new bicycle is better transportation than an old broken car.

The last reason I support the idea of a third party is that the message sent to Washington will affect both major parties, it will hit home that their little system is no longer accepted and that the people are taking matters into their own hands. It will do more to show who is boss. Maybe a win is not possible, at least not soon, but an impact is possible. If, by chance, some big wins did happen, a third party might actually take the place of one of the existing parties, and that is not a bad thing. Party loyalty is not a particularly useful trait in a republic. We need to be voting for the person who will best represent us, not the person with a certain letter by their name. As such, the impact of a strong showing in a third party will wake up not only Washington, but a lot of the American people as well. Why not send a message that really means something?