photo from Associated Press
Not the only ones running for US President
However, there are lesser known contenders out there.
There is the Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson.
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/
----
There is the Green Party candidate Jill Stein
http://www.jillstein.org/
--
There is the Constitutional Party candidate Virgil Goode.
http://www.goodeforpresident2012.com/
---------
The major media outlets ignore them. They only focus on well-known, well funded candidates from the Democratic and Republican parties.
The USA has 300 million people.
There is no way in hell that all 300 million people would be in near-total agreement with either of just 2 politicians!
But that's how the media portrays our nation.
To make matters worse, yesterday's presidential debate only had Obama and Romney.
All I learned from the debate is both of them like to interrupt the moderator a lot!
And only 2 viewpoints are highlighted in the debate.
John Nichols, a liberal writer, express an extremely good point about opening the debates to more presidential candidates.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/170312/these-debates-could-use-some-jill-stein-and-gary-johnson
The United States does not have presidential debates in any realistic sense of the word.
It holds quadrennial joint appearances by major-party candidates who have been schooled in the art of saying little of consequence in the most absurdly aggressive way. And Americans will be served a full helping this evening, as the travesty that the Commission on Presidential Debates foists on the country every four years begins its latest run.
Good starting point, but Nichols is about to make even stronger points that everyone needs to hear..
What would make the debates better?
More candidates.
In most developed nation—from Canada to Britain to France—debates are multi-candidate, multi-party affairs. It is not uncommon for five, six, even seven candidates to take the stage. Those countries do not just survive the clashes, they thrive—with higher levels of political engagement than the United States has seen in decades.
Only the most crudely authoritarian states erect the sort of barriers that the United States maintains to entry into the debates by so-called “minor-party” candidates.
and it gets even better
The fool’s argument against expanding the number of contenders is that debates involving more than the nominees of the two big parties—which, conveniently, control the access to the debates through their joint Commission on Presidential Debates—is that it would somehow confuse the electorate. As if Americans aren’t quite as sharp as the French.
Adding more candidates would not create confusion. It would add clarity.
Imagine if Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein joined Obama and Romney for this year’s debates. Instead of having to listen to a pair of adult men trying to distinguish between Obamacare and Romneycare, we could hear a working physician explain why a “Medicare for All” program would be dramatically more efficient, economical and humane than what either the president or his Republican challenger has proposed.
Imagine if Libertarian Gary Johnson could respond to the predictably empty wrangling about whether America is “broke”—as opposed to suffering from broken budget priorities. Johnson would propose bringing American troops and resources home from policing the world’s trouble spots, a wholly sensible fix that would make the United States safer, richer and a more popular.
Imagine if Constitution Party candidate Virgil Goode—who once talked about denying a US House seat to Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, because Ellison clutched a Koran rather than a Bible when he was sworn in—opened up a real discussion about the relationship between church and state. Instead of dancing around the issue, as they both do, Obama and Romney would be forced to get specific about how seriously they take the promise of Thomas Jefferson’s “wall of separation.” They might even call Goode out, sending a message that America needs to hear. from the leaders of both major parties.
So what are Obama and Romney afraid of? Why won't they engage with their lesser known opponents? Are they nervous that the side effects of their policies will get exposed? Are they afraid it will be harder to pander to certain demographics? Are they nervous about losing voters?
And what are the major media outlets afraid of? Are they afraid of new ideas? Are they afraid of not having enough air time (or newspaper space) to cover more than 2 candidates? Are they afraid of having less time to cover celebrity gossip?
Are the partisan networks (ie. Fox News, MSNBC) afraid of no longer being able to just rely on the "good vs evil" narrative when it comes to Democrats and Republicans
Whatever it is, it is time to spread the word. Let the people know that there is more to this election than Obama and Romney. But more importantly, let the people know that there is more to our politics than just Democrats and Republicans.
-----------
I also wrote a blog post (also published on UH's newspaper Ka Leo O Hawaii) back in 2004 concerning the same issue.
Check it out at
http://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2004/10/back-on-ka-leo-after-so-long-my-stuff.html
