In his final address to the public, George Washington warned of the inherent dangers of political parties. ADVERTISING In his final address to the public, George Washington warned of the inherent dangers of political parties. “The alternate domination of one
In his final address to the public, George Washington warned of the inherent dangers of political parties.
“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism,” he said.
For some, “formal and permanent despotism” accurately describes the two-party political system of 2014 America. Consider how much important domestic and foreign legislation is stalled in Congress because our representatives are more interested in winning elections than voting on important but politically costly issues.
Also, many members of the media and the public treat our politics in the same way we treat sports. Much is made of winners and losers and revenge for past slights, but not enough is made of whether legislation is actually good for the country. Too much policy becomes about what is or is not good for the party instead of what is or is not good for the people.
Consider the two-party two-step in Florida’s race for governor — this year because we have Rick Scott, a Republican, running against Democrat Charlie Crist. Crist was the Republican governor of Florida before Scott was elected. Crist then ran as a Republican for a U.S. Senate seat and lost. He eventually switched party affiliations, from Republican to independent to Democrat.
It’s enough to make one wonder how different the two parties really are if a candidate can not only switch from one side to the other, but also be embraced by the other side so easily. If you think the two-party system is fundamentally flawed, the question then becomes: What do we do about it? Adrian Wyllie, the Libertarian candidate for governor, says the answer is simple: Let other voices be heard.
Scott and Crist are scheduled to debate three times before the Nov. 4 election. Wyllie is suing over the second debate, produced by the Florida Press Association and Leadership Florida. Organizers set a threshold based on poll numbers for candidates to be included. Wyllie and seven other candidates did not have the support of 15 percent of likely voters, according to Mason-Dixon Polling &Research, and so only Crist and Scott will be on stage.
In his complaint, Wyllie argued his free-speech and equal-protection rights are being infringed and that the debate organizers’ criteria was designed to specifically exclude viable third-party candidates. He adds that his poll numbers in some surveys are close enough for his inclusion.
There are several other compelling arguments for why Wyllie and the other candidates should be included in debates. Voters should hear from others outside the mainstream. And, how can a third party ever gain any traction if its candidates are excluded from debates like this one?
Unfortunately for Wyllie, we suspect the most important aspect of this will be the nature of the debates themselves. Although they serve a vital role in our election process, the debates are coordinated by private organizations and probably won’t be subject to legal intervention. Wyllie has a constitutional right to free speech, but he doesn’t have a constitutional right to a seat at someone else’s table.
That could be fixed by a change of heart among debate organizers or a new group entering the fold with the recognition that the road to the election of Florida’s governor always should include a debate where every candidate who qualifies is on stage.
— From the Panama City News Herald
