As elections approach, once again people are talking about whether they'll be voting for the Republican or the Democrat. While I understand the need for realism, I can't help but wish that the system wasn't so simple. Many Republicans think John McCain isn't conservative, but there's nowhere for them to turn. Similarly, if anyone wants a candidate who's more liberal than Hilary Cilnton or Barack Obama, they'll be stuck. I'm reminded of the "Simpsons" episode in which two aliens bent on world domination are running for President. "You have to vote for one of us," says Kang. "I for one will vote for a third-party candidate," says someone in the audience. "Fine, throw you're vote away!" Kang replies. In the end of the episode, when humanity is enslaved to the aliens, Homer states, "Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos." This perfectly sums up the hopelessness that two-party politics can cause.
Personally, I think that John McCain, Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama are all good candidates and that any of them could be a good president. This is precisely the reason I'm considering voting for Ralph Nader. In the past two elections people have blamed Nader for causing Bush to win and this anger has caused them to continue to be against him. But, they seem to be overlooking a fact that should be obvious- George Bush is not going to win this election. So before dismissing Nader once again, people should ask themselves whether or not there is someone they passionately want to win or passionately want to lose. If they're not strongly for Clinton or Obama or strongly against McCain, they should give Nader serious consideration. It's about time people stood up for the idea of having a real choice.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
...as I was just talking about third parties to my history teacher. It came up in class that I am a) fed up with the media hype surrounding this election (as all elections) and b) fed up with the two-party system. You may or may not be familiar with it, but there is a system of votes called Single Transferable Vote (STV) that is used in Ireland, Northern Ireland, Malta, and in a variety of other places to different extents. I personally happen to be a fan of the system, which works more or less like this:
When voting, instead of putting a simple check next to the name of the candidate you are voting for, you number the candidates in order of preference. When votes are tallied, candidates who achieve a certain quota are elected. Any of that candidate's votes above the quota are redistributed to the second choice candidate on the ballot. Any other candidates who get pushed over the quota are elected and their excess votes redistributed. At the end of a round of counting, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and his or her votes are redistributed. The process repeats until all seats available are filled.
In order to use this system with the current American government structure, some serious changes might be necessary (the district system for the House of Representatives in particular), but the implications of such a system for a third party are definitely worth considering: rather than giving third party voters the impression that their vote is lost (which, in all honesty, it basically is: no third party or independent could really compete with the Democrats or the Republicans, so regardless of the fact that Bush isn't going to win this election, neither is Nader), it makes voting for third party candidates a viable option, even on the scale of a presidential election. If, in 2000, the votes of the Nader voters had been channeled to the primary candidates when Nader was eliminated, would the outcome have been changed? Maybe, maybe not. The difference would be that no-one could accuse third party voters of "throwing their votes away." This sort of system would encourage third parties to field candidates and run, and further would encourage people to vote for them.
Maybe I'm being too optimistic, but I think that having third parties that were actually heard would be a good thing for this country. At present we're suffering from a lack of diversity of opinions and also from the lack of a real left party.
By the by, the single-winner system of STV is called Instant-runoff voting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting