Written by Sarah Page   

It is hard to understand why anyone would vote for Mitt Romney who isn't 1) uniformed, 2) right-wing Christian, or 3) wealthy. The only other choice for everyone else is Obama, right? Well the Democrats and Republicans would like us to believe that they are the only options, and in fact they go out of their way to keep us all thinking that. Truth be told, there are other options, including parties with platforms more in line with majoritarian agendas - which means the American public should be voting for them in large numbers if we want to see our priorities addressed.

The following third-parties have ballot access to enough electoral votes to win the presidency: Libertarian, Green, Constitution, and Justice. My friend Brandon Irvin, a personal trainer in San Francisco, acknowledges that he is "not really familiar with any other candidates" outside those offered by the two parties. He says, "I feel he (Obama) will be the better president than Mitt Romney," and when asked what makes a good president opines, "a good president gets the policies I believe in into law."

For the most part, Americans accept a two-party system in the same way we accept a lot of things we don't like and don't think we can change. It's like watching a crappy TV show because it's the only thing on, only with a presidential election the stakes are much higher. And the two parties take advantage of the high stakes aspect, creating dilemmas in which we feel we have to vote for one of them out of fear of the other win-ning. The dominance of the two parties is supported by: their ability to outspend third parties on political advertising (largely through support of corporations and the wealthy), control of the presidential debates (excluding all other candidates), the difficulty for other parties to get on the ballots, and manipulation of voter fear.

The New York Times tallied the amounts raised and spent to date to elect the two party's candidates, including by the candidates’ campaigns, the national party committees and "the primary super PACS' whose sole purpose is to support a candidate" (http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance). As of September 30 2012, $834.7 million had been raised for Obama, and $771.7 million for Romney = $1.6 billion. In 1992, third-party candidate Ross Perot spent an estimated $60 million, and garnered close to 19% of the popular vote, but no electoral votes. That same year $192.2 million was spent by candidates in the presidential election in total (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/totals.php?cycle=). The more expensive campaigns get, the more difficult it becomes for third parties to compete. Democrats and Republi-cans easily outspend the third parties, raking in contributions and getting their messag-es across to voters through expensive television ads and other media.

On October 15, 2012, Mark Halperin of Time Magazine released a Memorandum of Un-derstanding between the Obama and Romney campaigns (http://thepage.time.com/2012/10/15/the-2012-debates-memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-obama-and-romney-campaigns/) which sets out rules governing the presidential debates. In an interview on Democracy Now (http://www.democracynow.org/2012/10/3/ahead_of_first_obama_romney_debate), George Farah explains how the presidential debates, which used to be put on by the League of Women Voters, a nonpartisan political organization which refused to be "an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American people," were taken over by the Republican and Democratic parties with their creation of the "Commission on Presidential Debates" (http://www.debates.org). Farah describes how over time, "candidates have made even greater efforts to control various components of the debates to eliminate both third-party candidates, unpredictable questions, and any threat to their dominance in our political process."

In an article for the Harvard Law Record, Theresa Amato (former campaign manager for Ralph Nader) describes the "convoluted and discriminatory" procedures for minor par-ties and Independents to gain ballot access. "Though certain state ballot access stat-utes are better, and a few Supreme Court decisions... have been generally favorable, on the whole, the process and the cumulative burden it places on these federal candi-dates may be best described as antagonistic. The jurisprudence of the Court remains hostile to minor party and Independent candidates..." and the "burdens faced by minor party and Independent candidates are systemic." (http://hlrecord.org/?p=10575)

I recently interviewed Matt Gonzalez, Ralph Nader's vice presidential running mate in 2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Gonzalez). He told me “The system isn’t going to be changed and we are never going to make strides in tearing down the two-party sys-tem until 10 to 15% of the American people are voting outside the two parties. Once that happens we can begin to see dramatic change. This will require people to not be scared. People need to work through the logic of why they are voting and vote for the candidate they really want, the candidate that will get them a more egalitarian society that addresses the issues they want." Fear keeps many people from voting outside the two parties. This is most evident in the prominence of gay and women’s rights in the current presidential race.

I interviewed Heather (who prefers her last name not be published), a lesbian activist and legal secretary, who plans to vote for Obama. She acknowledges that her reasons for voting for him are strongly tied to her self-interest as a gay person:

"This will be my first election where I feel like I'm voting purely out of self-interest. Obama has been fairly strong on LGBT issues and unfortunately, my ability to stay with my partner in this country hinges almost entirely on things staying their current course. My partner is an immigrant who will have to leave the country next year when her visa expires. Obama's administration recently issued a memo that clarifies that permanent same-sex relationships will be considered as family relationships when evaluating whether someone will be deported. We are trying to stay in the country as long as we can while DOMA makes its way through the courts and that memo may be the thing that keeps us here, in the end.” Heather went on to say that, “as a woman, the Republican's war on women's rights has been almost panic inducing. I've been seeing so many frighteningly regressive comments that it desperately makes me want to keep them out of the White House. Were it not for these two issues I would likely vote third party. Both the Republicans and Democrats have proven themselves beholden to corporate influences. Both want to continue policies like the War on Drugs. Both have failed to prosecute war crimes and economic crimes. Both will continue to erode our civil rights and liberties. I've been telling my friends that this election is like the choice between fascism and the Taliban. It really feels like that in many ways."

Patrick Carpenter (who prefers to not use his real name), a writer and editor, shared his thoughts with me: “I am troubled, no sickened, by drone attacks and these current wars in general. I am troubled and sickened by the Tea Party, a growing elected politi-cal force in our country. I believe the president, in many respects, has failed when it comes to the wars. I wish Ms. Stein was a political force on par with the Teapublicans, like the president is... The president won't redefine rape, Mr. Romney will... A candidate's viability is a real thing. I'm voting for President and against the Tea Party. I continue to hope for a viable way to affirmatively vote for someone like Jill Stein. This isn't that election.”

The Green Party's platform is in line with the majoritarian agenda, which means issues that more than half of all Americans are in favor of are supported by their platform (http://www.greenparty.org/Platform.php), including: raising the minimum wage, univer-sal healthcare, and ending the wars. Recent polling reveals broad public support for raising the minimum wage: "A national poll of 2012 voters earlier this year found that nearly three in four likely voters (73 percent) support increasing the minimum wage to $10 and indexing it to inflation. In 2008, then-presidential candidate Barack Obama pledged to raise the minimum wage to $9.50 by 2011, but no action has been taken. Presidential candidate Mitt Romney in January of this year stated his support for raising the minimum wage, but later claimed that no raise was necessary." (http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/media-center/entry/house-and-senate-intro-bills-to-increase-minimum-wage-to-9.80/) In an extensive ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll, Americans by a 2-1 margin, 62-32 percent, prefer a universal health insurance program over the current employer-based system. (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/US/healthcare031020_poll.html) In May 2012, 66% of Americans surveyed opposed the war in Afghanistan (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/09/ap-gfk-poll-support-for-afghan-war-at-new-low/). The Democrats and Republicans have us bickering over abortion and gay rights, while ignoring our need for things like a living wage, healthcare for all and an end to the expensive and unnecessary wars.

In a recent interview with Asher Platts (https://sites.google.com/site/electasherplatts/), Green Independent Party candidate for State Senate in Maine, Platt told me why he plans to vote for Jill Stein for president:

"I cannot in good conscience vote for either corporate-owned party, as a vote for a can-didate is an endorsement of their policies, both of which call for austerity for the poor, bailouts for the wealthy, "free trade" agreements for the corporations, and war for eve-rybody. They both are under the control of Wall Street- the only difference is one is openly brazen about their support for Wall Street-- the other is more subtle about it, and explains to their base why they can't do the things the base wants to do-- or blames the other party and uses them as a scapegoat.

I do not accept the argument of voting for the lesser evil, because again, a vote is an endorsement of policy. I cannot endorse Obama's assassination of US citizens abroad, his policy of indefinite detention of prisoners in violation of the Constitution and Magna Carta, or his drone wars around the world. I cannot support that. The Obama adminstration has decided that the Bush administration, who is so obviously guilty of war crimes, and other crimes-- illegal spying on US citizens-- but Obama's administration has just made all the things that Bush did that were illegal, legal. I cannot support that."

I interviewed Matt Sedillo, a writer and performer from LA who said, "I think that the Green party in many ways is moving away from what it once was and becoming a forum for people who are being displaced in the current economy. For instance I read on their website some article about police brutality. Imagine that, I am running to become head of the state, I am opposed to the conduct of the chief apparatus of the state... that is worth noting and certainly worth waiting in line to check a box."

When asked what actions Obama has taken or concepts he has supported that he dis-agrees with, Gonzalez lists: “the private army in Iraq made up of 50,000 to 100,000 sol-diers from the US (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/10/06/rep-issa-questions-obamas-private-army-in-iraq-afghanistan/), the increase of war in Afghanistan, the use of drones, the depressing bank bailouts which rewarded the banksters rather than credit-worthy borrowers, enormous deficit spending that will have dire circumstances for working class people, no effort to repeal NAFTA,” adding finally, “it is more like is there anything he’s done I DO agree with?”

Gonzalez continues: "I agree with Nader that Obama is extremely dangerous because he allows progressives to sleep. Michael Sandler calls him 'one great big fucking qua-lude.' He has been allowed to impose policies like Bush. The two parties present an us or them dillemma. They say vote for us and we will try to address these things you care about. That fundamental narrative is compelling one time between two parties. But to ask voters to engage in that every four years...these political parties don’t want the sys-tem to end. So Ross Perot can spoil it for Bush and Nader can spoil it for Kerry, but the parties are in office 50% of the time. Why change that system when it helps the wealthy and privileged protect their interests? Neither party has any standing. They do zero to keep the last minute dilemma from existing. I have to vote outside the two parties or I am rewarding them for this behavior and they are confident that they can play the scare hand."

Sedillo said, "Obama like Clinton has put a less vicious face upon vicious action. On a gut level he is more likable than Romney or Mccain. But ultimately he does what capital demands. Obama is a far more affable guy than say Richard Nixon and yet his presidency is far to the right of Nixon. Why? The current demands of capital in this cur-rent era. Liberals sometimes like to talk about Eisenhower and hold him up as an ex-ample of a great Republican and they cite his support of unions, opposition to segrega-tion and government jobs building the infrastructure of this country. Well yeah he had the same economic program as Roosevelt and Truman and why? The demands of capital, simple as that."

For some the election is about strategy more than anything else. Cornel West (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornel_West) has described Obama as “a black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs and a black puppet of corporate plutocrats” adding “now he has become head of the American killing machine and is proud of it.” Yet, he supports an Obama presidency, telling Vice magazine in an interview: “I’m strategic. We have to tell that truth about a system that’s corrupt—both parties are poisoned by big money and tied to big banks and corporations. Speaking on that is a matter of intellectual integrity. American politics are not a matter of voting your moral conscience—if I voted my moral conscience it would probably be for Jill Stein. But it's strategic in terms of the actual possibilities and real options available for poor and working people.” http://www.vice.com/read/cornel-west-plans-to-vote-for-obama-in-november-and-protest-his-policies-in-february

For Chris Hedges (http://www.truthdig.com/chris_hedges#bio), voting outside the two parties is not only strategic, it is essential. In his endorsement of Jill Stein Hedges writes: “The November election is not a battle between Republicans and Democrats. It is not a battle between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. It is a battle between the cor-porate state and us. And if we do not immediately engage in this battle we are finished, as climate scientists have made clear... Voting for the “lesser evil”—or failing to vote at all—is part of the corporate agenda to crush what is left of our anemic democracy. And those who continue to participate in the vaudeville of a two-party process, who refuse to confront in every way possible the structures of corporate power, assure our mutual destruction.” http://www.jillstein.org/truth_dig_chris_hedges_why_i_m_voting_green

“It is the combination of a social movement on the ground with an independent political party that has always made history together, whether during abolition, women’s suffrage or the labor movement,” Stein told Hedges from the campaign trail. This election America will not make history. So long as the two parties maintain their stranglehold on US politics, so long as the specter of a Republican presidency frightens, troubles, and sickens people into voting for Democrats like Obama, Americans will be unlikely to see progress made on the issues important to the majority of its citizens. Today strategy would seem to trump morality; those who vote for Obama better do more than hope for change. We need to hold out president accountable. I know Cornel West will be busy movement building. On Nov. 7 what will you be doing?

Note: in states like California, where polls favor an Obama win over Romney by 14% (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/27/nation/la-na-california-poll-20121026), those who want Obama to win over Romney, but prefer Jill Stein’s policies, should seriously consider voting for Stein. If Jill Stein receives at least 5% of the votes in the US, the Green Party will receive $20,000,000 in federal funding for the 2016 race.