Back in the 18th century our country was founded on the principles of democracy. We were given the right to choose our representatives, in essence simply the prerogative of choice. That principle has been upheld over the years and can be seen in things like the 17th Amendment, that gave us the right to vote for our senators, and also in court cases like Roe v. Wade’s which gave women the ability to decide if they want an abortion.

Yet for all the evidence of options over the last couple hundred years it often seems choice, options or alternatives are MIA in major government races on national and state levels. Nothing could show more proof of this than the 2000 presidential elections.

George W. Bush and Al Gore may have been running under different party names, but that does not make them dissimilar. Both campaigned on supporting the death penalty and banning partial -birth abortions. Neither would attempt to make abortions illegal. Bush and Gore alike supported force in Mideast and Balkans, and neither desired to have such units in Somalia. Where is the choice here? In Gore’s infamous idea of “lockbox” Social Security?

There was no choice. On the liberal – conservative spectrum both campaigners landed smack dab in the middle. It was like playing eenie-meenie-minie-moe. Honestly, it did not matter because the American public got the same result: a moderate.

This problem with lack of choice can be dated all the way back to the writing of the Constitution and the battle over the Bill of Rights. The Federalists were not in favor of adding restrictions on the government but the Anti-Federalists insisted on certain protections of people’s rights. This created the basic two-party system that still remains today. It created the biggest mistake in American politics.

Third parties may be allowed, but they rarely, if ever, make a significant difference. The only outside party to ever make a significant run for a major office was the Bull Moose Party headed by Teddy Roosevelt in 1912. Roosevelt splintered from the Republicans when he was not nominated for the Republican ticket. Roosevelt ended up losing to the Democratic candidate Woodrow Wilson, but successfully ousted any chance for Republican and then-incumbent president William Taft to win the election. Wilson won with just 42 percent of the vote. During his reign as president Wilson did put some of Roosevelt’s campaigning platforms into effect, including the 17th Amendment and also women’s suffrage in 1920.

Some may argue that the Green Party, and particularly Ralph Nader, cost the Democrats the election in 2000. If Nader had not received so many votes in Florida then Gore would likely have won the state, thus winning the election and avoiding those incessant recount jokes. I completely disagree. If Gore had taken a chance and moved just a little more left than center he probably would have picked up more of those Green votes and won the election. If he had gone out on a limb he might not have had to come out of the elections and recounts looking like a whiny baby.

Such is now becoming the case in Iowa. Both the Green Party and Libertarian Party have gotten on the ballot for the gubernatorial race in November. This means both Republican Doug Gross and Democrat Tom Vilsack will have voters being sucked away from both ends of the liberal-conservative spectrum. The hope would be that this would make the candidates move more to their respective sides and not be such straight shooters. It could give the residents of Iowa some choice of want kind of political philosophies they want in the person selected to represent their state.

There has been an extreme amount of whining among candidates instead of actual campaigning. Democrats fear that the Green party is going to pull a Nader and cause them to lose. The Green Party candidate for lieutenant governor, Holly Jane Hart, was quoted in the Des Moines Register saying she hopes that does not happen. Is she hoping the Green Party will not get votes?

I really admire the stance of Libertarian candidate Clyde Cleveland. He told reporters, “We absolutely believe that we can win this race.” He did not say sorry to Doug Gross because he might cost him the election. He is in the race to represent his views and without any reprisal whatsoever. He might be completely out of his mind imagining he will win, but I certainly respect his spirit.

To me, it seems that in Iowa this fall we might actually get what our Framers intended when creating a representative democracy: a choice. So if candidates stop their grumbling then this election might actually represent the views of the majority of Iowans, not just the moderate safeguard.

Ayrel

Clark

is a sophomore in

journalism and mass

communication from Johnston. She is a member of the Daily’s editorial board.