Third-party candidate not the answer

Ienjoyed reading Ian Journey’s recent article, “It’s time for a third-party candidate for president.” However, I feel compelled to respond to his proposal because, besides being untimely, it would more likely jeopardize our democracy as we know it. So, a third-party candidate is not the answer.

I agree with some of his observations. The electorate is frustrated with reelecting either Biden or Trump for president. Nonetheless, they offer starkly different visions of the future.

I also agree that the voting public is disillusioned with the traditional two-party system because it is normalizing legislative gridlock.

Political gridlock has prevailed in Washington for many years and it is only getting worse. When was the last time we had a reliable fiscal-year budget? National polls show that the majority of Americans want immigration reform, effective gun control legislation, lower drug prices and a lower national debt, but nothing gets resolved. Instead, legislators posture before television cameras, and, using flowery language, they say they hear us, yet nothing gets done. In the meantime, people are dying or starving in Ukraine, in Gaza, and even at home. We get excuses, not results.

In my humble opinion, the solution does not include electing a third-party candidate. Mr. Journey argues a third-party charismatic leader with a vision of a more inclusive democracy and a unifying message can bridge the current gap that exists between the left and the right. He reasons a leader who offers solutions that draw from the best ideas across the political spectrum will make the difference. This is where we disagree.

We currently have visionary leaders in Congress, from both the left and the right, who can reach consensus. They understand the complexity of the problems that plague our nation and appreciate that the art of politics and advancing good public policy requires compromise, give and take, urgency and patience. The conundrum does not lie in the absence of a charismatic leader but in the political infrastructure we utilize to elect our political leadership.

Two areas that come to mind are gerrymandering and the absurd amounts of money spent in elections.

The problem of the thirdparty solution is that it fails to consider the role Congress plays in governing. Unless Congress is willing to work with a sitting president to enact legislation that advances the interest of the public at large, no meaningful change will occur. If the sole purpose of certain Republicans today is to oppose the agenda of a sitting president, irrespective of the validity of proposed legislation, nothing gets done. This is what is occurring now. The question is why do those intransigent elected officials get elected and reelected to office. As long as they persist, they can impede meaningful legislation.

I propose that Congress revisit the issue of “gerrymandering” at the state and federal levels. Congress also needs to deal with how political campaigns are funded. The Supreme Court’s Citizen’s United vs. Federal Election Commission ruling literally opened the floodgates, allowing for millions of dollars to be raised from traditional donors but also sources that are difficult, if not impossible, to review.

Gerrymandering is drawing up electoral district boundaries with the intent to create an unfair advantage for a particular party. Consequently, Democrats and Republicans in power create district boundaries every 10 years that ensure reelection of their party members. In 2008, California voters passed Proposition 11 to strip the Legislature of its power to redraw its own election districts and to instead vest this responsibility with an independent citizens commission. Other states should follow our lead. Gerrymandering is still rampant in Texas, Louisiana, North Carolina and Florida. Our democracy needs it. A third party alone would not effectively address that. Money is still an issue.

The ruling in Citizens United set aside long-established boundaries that had limited the amount of money that could be spent by corporations and unions on elections to exert their influence on elections and distorting the public debate. “When corporations grab up the primetime broadcasting slots on the eve of an election, they can flood the market with advocacy that bears little or no correlation to the ideas of natural persons.” (Citing the dissent in Citizens United.)

Unfortunately, our history with respect to third-party candidate from Upton Sinclair to Teddy Roosevelt to George Wallace, Ross Perot or Ralph Nader is clear. They were at most spoilers and were never close to being elected outright. Perot facilitated the election of Bill Clinton and Nader’s role enabled the election of George W. Bush. They exploit fundamental flaws in our political system without a long-term solution. We cannot afford to gamble with our nation’s future.

Yes, both major party candidates are old. It has been said “a man is as old as his arteries but as young as his ideas.” So, let’s focus on the ideas and visions propounded by each candidate. That is not only our only viable option but our patriotic duty.

We voters are the stewards of this great nation. What will we impart to our children?