The control of public office in the United States of America has always been monopolized by two political parties. Since the days of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, forms of what are now the Republican and Democratic parties have been the two organizations from which most presidents have been elected. In the coming months, the nominees of America’s two main parties will be proclaimed, and American voters will be awaiting the national presidential debates, where voters can expect each candidate to spout seemingly opposing platforms that nevertheless lead to the same result: a maintaining of the status quo.
In the past, before the advent of television and radio, presidential candidates reached voters not through debating, but through party-controlled newspapers. Debates caught public interest during the 1858 Abraham Lincoln vs. Stephen Douglas race for the Senate, but faded largely thereafter. Interest in debates resurfaced during Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s tenure, when Republicans repeatedly called for debates, but their efforts were ignored. This changed when the first televised presidential debate was held between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy in 1960, helping the lesser-known Kennedy improve his chances to win over the nation’s electorate.
Although debates have given underdog candidates more exposure and have improved their chances of defeating better-known candidates, the media has generally only included the nominees of the Republican and Democratic parties. In 1992, this, however, was not the case: Ross Perot, an independent candidate, was included in debates with Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush. He was able to able to climb 14 points in the polls during the time of the debates, some of which he was even declared the winner of. Many complained that Perot’s run cost Bush the election, and no third party candidate since has been included after the Commission on Presidential Debates created more exclusive rules.
It is time for America to demand that the media bring more viewpoints to the forefront of elections by allowing third-party candidates to have a national audience. Perot proved that simply giving outsider candidates a voice can cause great changes to the two-party system, potentially allowing for a greater array of choices for voters.
Both parties themselves are very diverse in their members’ policy ideas: Republicans are divided among the neoconservatives, constitutional conservatives, libertarians, the religious right and the moderate establishment, while Democrats ranges from moderate to socialist. It is only logical that such varied groups cannot fully agree on a nominee that will support all their constituents’ opinions on policy. Having multiple candidates on stage from different parties would then allow even Democratic or Republican voters to hear ideas from a broader range of voices, rather than two relatively similar ones with whom they do not necessarily agree.
Having just two voices is simply not enough given the plethora of viewpoints among voters. It is time to allow Americans a chance to be able to hear from a greater selection of candidates and remove the monopoly system placed on elections by the media and the two major parties. Perhaps then the American electorate can truly decide elections for themselves.