The two major American political parties consist of Way to the Right of Center Conservative (Republican) and Somewhat to the Right of Center Conservative (Democrat)—contrary to the assertion of the Bush administration that Kerry and Edwards are "extreme liberals." In my view, judging from a few politicians I have met and talked with, notably Washington State Congressional Representive Jim McDermott, those in the Democratic Party will be considerable more accessible and responsive to non-billionaires like me than the Republicans have been or ever will be. And far less inclined to play the global bully, at least in the somewhat crude and obvious way of manufacturing reasons to invading other countries as the Bush administration has done.

The reason there is a rigid two-party system in the U.S. is that it's "winner take all." In some countries, the government is made up of a coalition reflecting the proportion of the population that voted for each of the various parties. In this kind of system, a third, fourth, fifth, or tenth party at least has a voice in the government. But not in the United States. The President is going to be either a Republican or a Democrat. The Senate and the House of Representatives will be predominantly Republican or Democrat. If the President and the majority of Congress are of the same party (as is the case now), the President has an easier time getting his policies approved and the laws he wants passed. If they are of different parties, not so easy. This is all part of the "checks and balances" that the Founding Fathers had in mind. As far as third or fourth party members are concerned, there may be an occasional Green in the House of Representatives, and perhaps a Libertarian or two, maybe even a Senator who calls himself an "Independent," but that's about all the influence minority parties have ever achieved.

And although it makes the supporters of third party Presidential candidates unhappy when someone points it out, a liberal third party candidate will split the Democratic vote, making it more likely that the Republican Party candidate will win (and vise versa, but right now there is no conservative third party to split the Republican vote). It's simple arithmetic. One can expect third party supporters to cavil at this and deny the obvious because if they acknowledged the truth of it, they would have to face the political reality that they are damaging their cause more than they are helping it. It is more productive to vote for the major party that's nearest to your position, even if they don't fully represent your beliefs, and if they (hopefully) get elected, be politically active in that party and try to influence it as much as you can in the direction you want it to go.

The solution to the problem, of course, is to change the system under which American politics works. But I doubt this will happen in the foreseeable future.

Don Firth