Choice is being squeezed out of American politics

reprinted from 11/05/2004

In 2000, in an election considered even closer than the mess we just endured, candidates other than Bush or Gore received about 4 million votes. In 2000, Nader got close to 3 million votes, Buchanan got about 449,000, and Browne, the Libertarian candidate got 384,000.

In 2004, the number of votes cast for candidates other than Bush or Kerry plummeted to about 1 million. Nader fell by almost 2.5 million votes. On a somewhat positive note, the Libertarian candidate vote total remained quite constant. Here are the 2004 totals, with some votes still to be counted:

Nader - independent candidate - 394,578
Badnarik - Libertarian party - 377,940
Peroutka - Constitution party- 129,138
Cobb - Green party - 99,666

As I wrote on Wednesday, it was the most expensive presidential election in history, at $1.2 billion. You might assume that with 2 candidates capturing almost all the votes, that their cost per vote might be low. Think again.

Bush spent $306.3 million to get 58,978,616 votes - $5.19 per vote
Kerry spent $241.7 million to get 55,384,497 votes - $4.36 per vote
Nader spent $3.9 million to get 394,578 votes - $9.77 per vote
Badnarik spent .75 million to get 377,940 votes - $1.98 per vote

Those totals don't include the massive amount of money spent on BEHALF of Bush and Kerry through other organizations, nor do they include the massive amount of free media coverage they received all through the campaigns. It also doesn't include the huge amount of tax money spent on the major party conventions, neither of which had anything to do with nominating a candidate. They were nothing but enormously expensive political rallies, at public expense.

Nader's performance was embarrassing to an extreme... not only a lot of money spent, but a lot of free coverage as "the only other candidate". Even if Nader had spent only the tax money he accepted ($799,000), he still would have spent $2.02 per vote.

Just for fun... how many votes might Michael Badnarik have gotten if he had had just the tax money that went to Bush and Kerry? They each received $74,620,000 in tax dollars. At Badnarik's $1.98 cost/vote, that translates into 37,686,868 votes. If those 37.7 million votes were taken equally from Bush and Kerry, these would have been the results:

Bush 40,135,182
Badnarik 37,686,868
Kerry 36,541,063

That was with only the tax money. If Badnarik had spent even what Kerry spent ($241,667,000), at $1.98 per vote that would hypothetically yield 122,054,000 votes. That's more than the number of voters.

$1.2 billion gathered and spent to purposefully polarize the nation.
$1.2 billion spent to on deception, on empty rhetoric delivered with the emphasis of an evangelist, as if the candidate was on a holy mission to save us from the "evil other", when we all know that there is very little difference between them. Media fawning over the two powerful candidates, reporting their slightest movement, every word they utter, and every rumor that rears its head.

As a Libertarian, supporting a candidate running only on voluntary contributions... accepting not one dime of your tax dollars... you can imagine my disgust at finding every web site, every newspaper, and every TV news show displaying only the 3 "anointed" candidates in contention for the Presidency... Bush, Kerry, and Nader. While the vote totals for those 3 people were plastered all over the TV, and updated as results came in, it was difficult to even FIND the national totals for Badnarik. Without the Internet, it would have been impossible. While we were presented, for the major candidates, with detailed counts by county and even key districts, complete with talking-head interpretation and historical relevance, I heard not ONE mention of Badnarik, Peroutka, or Cobb. That isn't reporting, it's controlling the information the public receives. It's simply deliberate neglect. The source of vote totals is the individual Secretaries of State of each state, and they are obliged to treat each candidate the same... they accumulate totals for all candidates. Of those I checked, they do a thorough and complete job. Media has access to all those numbers, but they choose to present only part of it. For over 600,000 Americans, their votes went ignored... unimportant... invisible.

Perhaps the major media covers only those candidates who receive federal election money? Isn't that sort of like rewarding thieves at the expense of their victims?

If you think it's just too much trouble to cover more candidates, think about sports news coverage. Not only are ALL teams covered in ALL sports, but they're covered in intricate detail... every day of every year. Are presidential elections once every 4 years of less importance?

It's clear that media works in their own self-interest. Their access to government information depends on maintaining friendly relations with those in power. The result is that those in power effectively control U.S. major media. If you doubt that, try reading foreign news for a change. You'll find them a lot more outspoken and critical of government... the way our own press used to be, before our government had so much power.

What bothers me most about our elections is two facts about public opinion... that a large majority of voters believe government is too big, and that they DO want more election choices. Will we ever have those two desires satisfied? It should be clear that neither will come from the two major parties. Neither is in their own self-interest. Each election cycle, the D's and R's increase the power of government, which increases their own power... which further handicaps any competition to them. Voters could overcome that, but there are now so many voters "on the take" from big government that they seem to be sweeping the rest of us along. Massive contributions from unions, corporations, and thousands of organizations that receive government money are purchasing our government... and it gets worse every year. The recent "campaign reform" legislation was a farce, intended, like all regulations, to increase the power of those already in power and handicap all others.

Will it just continue to get worse? Is there anything the citizenry can do about it? There is, but it would require abandoning the silly idea of choosing the lesser of two evils in order to avoid the worst. That ignorant idea has polarized our nation to the point of each half of the citizenry thinking that the other half is dangerous... even evil.

Both parties play a vicious game... telling lies about each other, trying to make us believe that each campaign is of real importance and that the other party is a danger. They each, with a lot of help from media, present their candidates as saviors... the only one standing in the way of the other side destroying what we hold dear. They work hard at telling us not only what to believe, but what to fear. Putting a stop to this insanity will require a real leap of intelligence and common sense on the part of a LOT of citizens.

Libertarians have been there, working hard and waiting for 32 years for that leap. It should be clear that no other party can survive the incredible power of the Democrats and Republicans. That should make you think. If you voted for either Bush or Kerry, you're playing right into the hands of the power-brokers... you're part of the compliant, easily-deceived electorate. If you expect conditions in our nation to EVER get better, you must reconsider, think hard, and resolve to do something about it. There is no alternative.