This primary season points out challenges to our rigid two-party system.
Bernie Sanders chose to run as a Democrat to enable him to receive debate time exposure and to be taken seriously as a candidate. He could have chosen to run on a Social Democrat ticket and be viewed as a “disruptive” third-party candidate – a mere footnote to the major players. In other countries of the world there are multiple significant parties.
Some countries don’t have our limited two-party “winner take all” system, but share governance proportionately. The multiple parties play an important role, representing the voices of all citizens.
Sanders has had his challenges with the Democratic Party. It is common knowledge that the Democratic National Committee had pre-ordained Hillary Clinton as this year’s candidate years ago.
What is infuriating and dangerous for our democracy are the various tactics and subterfuge that the party elites have employed to ensure that she receives the nomination.
Some of the steps that were taken include:
Early pre-pledged support from Super Delegates.
A debate schedule intended to lessen Sanders’ exposure to the public.
The resources of the DNC being selectively available to Clinton.
Misdirection of Democratic party donations.
Multiple cases of various forms of election fraud.
It’s been said that Sanders “knew the rules” before he entered the game. While this is true, the rules were broken.
The two-party system is insufficient for truly serving America. We are cautioned to vote for whomever the Democratic Party anoints, for fear of losing to the Republicans. This is especially effective this year, with the spectre of a Trump presidency. I remind people of the clever turn of phrase – “Yes, I want to vote for the lesser of two evils. But I don’t support voting for the evil of two lessers.”
It is obvious that the independent vote is becoming more of a factor in American electoral politics. Yet many primaries are closed to the voice of independents.
Sanders is not running just to influence the platform of the Democratic Party. Clinton has been quick to mimic his policy proposals, however she is under no compunction to enact them upon her election.
Considering how popular Sanders’ positions are across a wide spectrum of Americans, he is actually polling stronger against Trump than is Clinton. It is because of the independent voters, who are tired of both parties, and just want to hear the truth about necessary systemic change. Our overall voter turnout for elections is under 60 percent. That puts the United States at 120th out of 169 countries for average turnout.
If Sanders had run as a respected, strong third-party candidate and had been given the media coverage that he deserved, he may have had a more equitable route towards the White House.
No matter how you choose to vote, this discussion must transcend the current election, and serve to compel us to create a more democratic and inclusive method of voting for our president.
Jeff Krauth lives in Leeds.