A Lesser of Two Evils Every presidential election in my lifetime has been a lesser of two evils.

It was said that when you choose the lesser of two evils, always remember that it is sti ll an evil (Lerner). The use of a two-party system usually makes Americans choose an evil. Is the only way to get the support needed to be President of the United States in our society, of mass media such as television and radio, to belong to the Democratic or Republican Party? Our forefathers created our system of elect ions so that every four years there could be a peaceful revolution, but it does no t seem to work that way. One party elect is in office for a term or two, and the y mess everything up, then it is the other partys turn. It is just a switch of po wer, back and forth, from one party to the other. While both partys members may g et more of their ideas pushed by belonging to a political party, rather than not belonging to one, our current two-party system is not a good system for choosin g presidents in our country. Once the President Elect reaches office a problem arises. There was so much mone y and power provided by his party to help him reach his post that he has to make choices that reflect what the party wants, or be ostracized. The choices of who to appoint, and make the final decisions are no longer being made as they were intended, solely by one man based on advice rather that political pressure. The office of The President of the United States is intended to be run by one man, s o that laws can be vetoed, and judges can be appointed by one person without pre ssure of payback. When you throw this into the equation decisions become clouded. When decisions are clouded they are not made for the right reason, and we end up with enormous problems. It could all be eliminated if every political party was limited by the amount of funding they were allowed, and it would allow for othe r partys to have a fair chance. Because, if we limit their funding it will level the playing field by allowing anyone, party affiliated or not, the chance to get their messages out. Then there is the issue of people who vote on the principles of a political part y. An example of this is; The Republican Party is against abortion, therefore pe ople who consider abortion immoral will usually vote Republican. Whereas, those who are for gun control will normally vote Democratic, because the Democratic Pa rty supports it. This is true even if they do not agree with the partys fiscal po licies. Of course there are always exceptions to the rule. In our great country, ethical issues are usually trumped by major money issues; when our economy is b ad some of those Republicans will vote for a Democratic president. But of course there are those that will always hold strong to party lines. It really comes do wn to this: Politicians are not supposed to be deciding on issues of principle f or people. First and foremost, it is the peoples decision to decide on matters of principle, as our constitution states, and if it can not peacefully be decided at that level, then the courts can intervene. This is so negative, because peopl e are not choosing a candidate based on how they will balance our national budge t, choose advisors, or deal with foreign governments. We may elect the personifi cation of the Buddha when it comes to morality, but end up with Robert Mugabe wh en it comes to leadership qualities. People argue that a two-party system is good because things get done eff ectively when the President has a majority in Congress and the Senate. They say that there would be too many opposing views, to be effective, if there were many other parties involved. It may be true that things get done quickly in this cas e, but is that always a good thing? Just like the recent bank bailout package that was passed, it went through quick, but at what cost? It was first presented as a bailout only, nothing else, and it would not go through, so they added incentiv es so that they could be sure it would go through. People making decisions based on special interests rather than the interest of the people is corrupt. Our prob lems are compounding because people are looking for the quick fix instead of the

right fix. Everything is moving so quickly because people are acting on behalf of their party. Acting in this manner becomes another case of thoughtless submis sion to a party. In this way the party becomes an entity of its own, by its mant ras, and interjection from the individual is out; it is an inane way to run a co untry. This comes back to my earlier point where decisions become clouded. If the President is not making the decisions based on what he feels is right, then reas on is thrown out, and that is never good. And I know that I am not alone on my v iewpoint, since the fastest-growing group in American politics [are] independents (Rauch 103) and since the Iraq War 30 percent of Americans have identified themse lves as Republicans, 31 percent as Democrats, and 39 percent as independents (or "other") (Rauch 103). This would not be the case if people were happy with the c urrent system. Sure, there are always other choices for Commander in Chief, but in our current two-party system will your choice for another president be throwing your vote aw ay? You probably will. This excerpt from The Simpsons television show, where two space aliens, Kang and Kodos, are pretending to be the presidential candidates vividly illustrates my point in a comedic way: Homer: America, take a good look at your beloved candidates! They re nothing but hideous space reptiles! [Homer rips the artificial heads off Kang and Kodos, and the rest of their disgu ises burst away. The audience gasps in terror.] Kodos: It s true, we are aliens! But what are you going to do about it? It s a t wo-party system - you have to vote for one of us! [Crowd murmurs in confusion] Man 1: He s right, this is a two-party system. Man 2: Well, I believe I ll vote for a third-party candidate. Kang: Go ahead! Throw your vote away! [Kang and Kodos laugh maniacally, while Ross Perot smashes his "Perot 96" hat in frustration] (Treehouse). When you picture this it may seem outrageous, but it is the sad reality. Most pe ople know that if you vote for a third party candidate all you do is make a stat ement, but no one seems to be listening. So people choose the candidate that the y agree with on most issues, and sometimes based on nothing more than the person ality that they like the most. I think that there is a better way! Lets limit fut ure presidential hopefuls budgets so that the American dream can once again live.