The answer may lie in the middle

Robert Healey
Posted 2/12/15

The editor and I have been discussing a writing project for this newspaper, and, in the meantime, I have been allotted this space for my thoughts on various state issues, of which there are …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in

The answer may lie in the middle

Posted

The editor and I have been discussing a writing project for this newspaper, and, in the meantime, I have been allotted this space for my thoughts on various state issues, of which there are many.

Given that there was a recent election, and given that I was a candidate for governor, I guess there is a need to discuss elections.

This is especially pertinent in that the old two-party system seems to be wearing thin, for various reasons.

I often get to lecture classes on the topic of government and politics.  Usually, I begin the lecture with the flashing of a $100 bill and the statement, “This is for the first person who can show me where in the United States or Rhode Island Constitution there is a provision for a two-party system.”

Of course, there is no such provision and my “C-note” comes home with me.  But, this is a perfect illustration of what people believe, in light of what actually is.  

Growing up in a two-party world has conditioned us to think in a bi-partisan manner. There are Democrats and there are Republicans (and some who frequently switch between these parties).

It is so ingrained that we see the issues skewed by these two party perspectives, often eschewing positions that are logically sound because they came from the “other” party.

Recently, I had the pleasure of being asked to run for Governor and agreed to do so, if I could do so in a manner that would create what I called, “A Cerebral Revolution.” 

There is a need for people to vote for people who will solve problems. This type of thinking is no longer encouraged by a two party system, especially where the parties are dependent on campaign finances to run their races.

The answer is not at the extremes but in the middle. There are always arguments for and against any measure but, if one is seeking resolution, the answer is often in the middle, extracting the best from both sides.

The importance of campaign donations has warped this process, and this is especially pronounced in a two party structure.

Take any issue and you will find the Democrats on one side and the Republicans on another. This divisiveness allows each side to amass campaign funds by pledging to continue the fight for their adherents. It sounds correct, but it fails to provide solutions.

To ensure the flow of campaign money, the problem must remain. Resolution would mean the campaign donations dry up.

Since modern politics requires funding, “the mother’s milk of politics,” there is no regard for the voter, except to use money to almost buy votes.  Professional handlers and advertising executives script each campaign. Candidates are rarely let off the reservation.

They do this because it works, or at least it did.  Rhode Islanders made this much more difficult in the last election, and good for them.  In November, over one in five people voted for a third party candidate who spent less for the campaign than the winner did for one vote.

The message is not entirely clear but several professional campaign groups are studying the results. Could it be that Rhode Islanders see that the two party system is no longer viable?  Could it be a fluke? Could it be they wanted to show their votes could not be bought?

Whatever the reason, it is clear that Rhode Island has come close to abandoning the two party system, although it can be argued that the Republicans are irrelevant so there is a need for a real second party.

Rhode Islanders are on a cutting edge. Assuming it wasn’t a fluke, the people have seen that they are empowered and can use that power to restore government to the people. 22 percent is not a win but it is a statement.

With the Secretary of State elect indicating a desire to upgrade election machines, it is a good time for the legislature to review its method of election, especially with the people watching and indicating that Rhode Island may have ended its affair with the two-party system.

In many recent elections, our governors have won based on a plurality rather than a majority. The continued support for third party candidates indicates that the mechanism for two-party voting needs revision. It can be said quite clearly that a third party will continue in Rhode Island in the future. As for only two parties; in Rhode Island-eze, it’s time to “Get ova it.”

An attorney, Healey ran as the Moderate candidate for governor in 2014.

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here