Dougherty Arts Center
It's the 'Chronicle' Endorsing the Status Quo
RECEIVED Tue., Oct. 19, 2010
Dear Chronicle,
In your endorsements [“'Chronicle' Endorsements, News, Oct. 15], you write that to vote for Libertarians or Greens in this year's elections is "a decision that effectively endorses and sustains the political status quo." If there is any truth to that statement, it is at best shortsighted. In the short term, it may sustain the more popular of the two parties. But taking a longer-term view, the very essence of the status quo is the two-party system, and to move beyond that we must be willing to look past "tactical" factors and make voting decisions strictly on the merits of the candidates and their positions. Americans deserve to have a free marketplace of ideas in our politics; it's the only way we can expect the best ideas to be implemented. We can get rid of the two-party system by insisting that candidates win with a majority of votes – this can be accomplished through instant run-off voting. Both Democratic and Republican voters would benefit – though they may not realize it yet.
As for endorsing the political status quo, it's impossible to see a third-party vote as such. I think it's safe to say that people who vote for third-party candidates see very little in the political status quo to endorse.
Isn't it time for the Chronicle to take a stand against the two-party system? It is a big source of the stagnation and lack of accountability in American politics. By limiting your candidate choices to the two parties (making one exception for a race in which the Democrats did not field a candidate), you are the ones endorsing and sustaining the status quo.
In your endorsements [“'Chronicle' Endorsements, News, Oct. 15], you write that to vote for Libertarians or Greens in this year's elections is "a decision that effectively endorses and sustains the political status quo." If there is any truth to that statement, it is at best shortsighted. In the short term, it may sustain the more popular of the two parties. But taking a longer-term view, the very essence of the status quo is the two-party system, and to move beyond that we must be willing to look past "tactical" factors and make voting decisions strictly on the merits of the candidates and their positions. Americans deserve to have a free marketplace of ideas in our politics; it's the only way we can expect the best ideas to be implemented. We can get rid of the two-party system by insisting that candidates win with a majority of votes – this can be accomplished through instant run-off voting. Both Democratic and Republican voters would benefit – though they may not realize it yet.
As for endorsing the political status quo, it's impossible to see a third-party vote as such. I think it's safe to say that people who vote for third-party candidates see very little in the political status quo to endorse.
Isn't it time for the Chronicle to take a stand against the two-party system? It is a big source of the stagnation and lack of accountability in American politics. By limiting your candidate choices to the two parties (making one exception for a race in which the Democrats did not field a candidate), you are the ones endorsing and sustaining the status quo.
Dan Eckam
