Since its conception in 1920, the League of Women Voters, a non-partisan organization, aimed to educate Americans in order for them to cast a well-informed vote upon election time. However, On October 3rd, 1988, on behalf of the League of Women Voters president Nancy Neuman stated, “It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and honest answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public." For the first time in history, an organization called out our own government on its manipulation in presidential debates and decided to pull their support in favor of the voters. It was the LWV who saw our democracy for what it is: an operation seeded with favoritism, and a corrupted system in which elections and party exposures are manipulated. Since then, the system has only gotten worse.
The popular vote has been ignored as has the people’s right to choose and proclaim their party. In his New York Times article, “Gary Johnson: Our Two-Party System Has Failed, Just Like Our Founders Said It Would,” Johnson, Libertarian Party presidential nominee, writes, “Most people consider themselves 'independents’...a non-partisan approach...would do wonders to diffuse the harsh partisanship that we've seen develop in recent years.” Johnson recognizes that our concerns are being disregarded within the system and refuses to allow one sole party to have “absolute power”.
Similarly, we see the ignored majority in Joshua Spivak’s L.A. Times article, "Why Donald Trump Won't Run as a Spoiler Candidate,” written December 28, 2015. Spivak writes, “Numerous polls and other data suggest that voters, are eager for choices from outside the mainstream…In a 2014 Gallup poll, 42% of voters identified as independent…” Spivak is noting that many American citizens do not prefer to be one or another party. However, according to Independent Voter Network, a collective of news and opinions on independent proclaimed voters, any vote deemed “independent” is not accounted for in ballots. Meaning, you must choose a party or your vote is not cast. This is a restriction to the basic rights of having an individual choice.
Not only are independent votes cast aside, but an independent party must satisfy unreasonable requirements just to be included in debates. On June 10, 2016, Ralph Nader wrote an article for the L.A. Times entitled, “Ralph Nader: There’s No Such Thing as a Political ‘Spoiler’.” In his article, Nader, an American political activist, recalls the creation of the “Commission on Presidential Debates.” The Commission being a “commercially funded private corporation”, by both of the two major political parties in 1987 which has set the national poll at 15% to simply enter the presidential race. In doing so, this makes it much more difficult for third-parties to obtain enough supporters to officially run as a candidate. Nader overall is stating the barriers in political races for third-parties are endless, and thus is the reasoning behind why such few of their candidates have made it into proper elections.
Media outlets have only added to the monstrosity that is favoritism in political parties, as they unfairly deny other candidate’s exposure. From the U.S. Broadcasting Regulatory Rules, the Equal Time Rule is set so that television stations must give appropriate and equal air time for all candidates. If one candidate receives one minute of time, so must the other. There are exceptions where this rule does not apply, one being if a broadcast is “news events”. Political debates not hosted by the media are considered “news events” and thus, if a presidential debate were to be aired in this manner, there is no such requirement for air time. This major loophole allows the manipulation of what citizens are exposed to in media, and in doing so prevents a just and fair voting.
Major news coverage networks can no longer be unbiased. In a Washington Post article of August 21, 2016, Matea Gold and Anu Narayanswamy write, “[Trump] continued to pay one former staffer: ousted campaign manager Corey Lewandowski received his regular $20,000 monthly fee on July 6 – two weeks after he was jettisoned and had been hired by CNN as a political commentator. Trump has continued to call on Lewandowski for advice since his departure…” How can Lewandowski report political coverage without bias if he is getting paid by Trump himself? Knowing this, it seems best to take any of Lewandowski’s, and CNN’s, words with a grain of salt.
Social media has also taken its spin in the political whirlwind. Kyle Kulinski of “Secular Talk”, a live blog talk-radio show, brings up the “internet exemption” loophole super PACs have created in defense of Hillary Clinton. Super PACs are “independent- expenditure only committees”, meaning they cannot give funds or other contributions to political campaigns, but are allowed to spend as much as they want on anything political not relating to campaigns. Therefore, they would not support a candidate, however, as Kulinski mentions, a Pro-Hillary super PAC decided back in April to spend one million dollars for people to oppose arguments online. Since it’s online, the super PAC deemed it fair game. We can’t even troll the internet with our own thoughts without being trolled ourselves.
The focus is no longer about fixing the nation’s issues, but rather the entire political system is one giant popularity and taunting contest. Since the first presidential debate, the tallies have piled up on candidate jabbing. From Clinton’s emails, to Trump’s derogatory statements towards women. It’s obvious that news networks would point out such a manner, but even Senator Hillary Clinton has commented on the ridiculous bickering, stating on October 9, 2016, "OK, Donald. I know you're into big diversion tonight, anything to avoid talking about your campaign and the way it's exploding and the way Republicans are leaving you. But let's at least focus.” Hillary Clinton, Democratic presidential candidate, acknowledges her running rival in his own disorderly conduct, showing how apparent this sort of behavior is in the election process.
The very little coverage we have seen from third parties has not benefitted Independents in the slightest. Dana Milbank, writing for The Washington Post on August 23rd 2016, gives us his opinion in “From Jill Stein, disturbing echoes of Ralph Nader.” Milbank quotes Stein's judgment of Clinton as “not compatible with someone that you want to trust as the leader of the country” in accordance to the controversial emails. Jill Stein's criticism of Clinton influences public favor towards Trump as seen in poll increases, according to Milbank, since Stein's campaign continuity. Milbank's comparing of Stein to Ralph Nader, who similarly helped George W. Bush gain popularity rather than Al Gore, rings true. Negative coverage of a candidate pulls the focus away from the actual important issues, and endorses a competitive judgmental view of the presidential candidates.
On January 12, 2016, in a New York Times article titled, “Obama Confronts Americans’ Fears in State of the Union Speech”, writer Julie Hirschfeld Davis quotes President Obama’s Ste of the Union Address, “’It’s one of the few regrets of my presidency, that the rancor and suspicion between the parties has gotten worse instead of better.’” President Obama has stated himself of the corruption between both political parties. His opinion on the matter is a grave thing to read, for if the President is making an official speech about this, then it has gotten past the point of no return. In addressing his opinion of the two parties, President Obama is bringing this suspicion into the questioning minds of voters, and giving them an opportunity to really dive into questioning the political system, as well as making note of who we will choose.
As if we are nothing but an audience to fools on platforms, and not voters, we are only presented with a two-party plaster in main media outlets. The political system refuses to offer us a variety of perspectives or opinions. I for one refuse to be coerced into making a fear-based decision for the next “less evil” president of the United States. Our government has neglected the voices of its people as they stuffed their cold, firm hands up our backs and casted out votes for us time and time again. I am not a puppet; there will be no hand to cast my vote, no hand but my own.
Works Cited
Pro-Hillary Super PAC Is Paying Online Trolls To Debate You. Perf. Kyle Kulinski. Pro-Hillary Super PAC Is Paying Online Trolls To Debate You. Secular Talk, 23 Apr. 2016. Web. 17 Oct. 2016.
"Statement by Nancy M. Neuman, President, League of Women Voters." LWV. League of Women Voters, n.d. Web. 14 Oct. 2016.
Davis, Julie Hirschfeld, and Michael D. Shear. "Obama Confronts Americans’ Fears in State of the Union Speech." Obama Confronts Americans’ Fears in State of the Union Speech. The New York TImes, 12 Jan. 2016. Web. 16 Oct. 2016.
Gold, Matea, and Anu Narayanswamy. "Trump Campaign Has Biggest Spending Month Yet, but Clinton Dominates Financially." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 21 Aug. 2016. Web. 16 Oct. 2016.
Johnson, Gary. "Gary Johnson: Our Two-party System Has Failed, Just like Our Founders Said It Would." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 7 Sept. 2016. Web. 10 Oct. 2016.
Krieg, Gregory, and Daniella Diaz. "Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton II: The Nastiest Lines." CNN. Cable News Network, 10 Oct. 2016. Web. 18 Oct. 2016.
Milbank, Dana. "From Jill Stein, Disturbing Echoes of Ralph Nader."Washington Post. The Washington Post, 23 Aug. 2016. Web. 8 Oct. 2016.
Nader, Ralph. "Ralph Nader: There's No Such Thing as a Political 'spoiler'"Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 10 June 2016. Web. 8 Oct. 2016.
Spivak, Joshua. "Why Donald Trump Won't Run as a Spoiler Candidate." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 28 Dec. 2015. Web. 8 Oct. 2016.