Many people are frustrated with how our country is being run today, blaming the government for every problem they see. But this is not entirely the government’s fault. We the people elect our representatives which makes us at least partially responsible for how the government is run. Our inability to elect good officials, however, is not entirely our fault. Some people believe that the manner in which we elect out officials is a major part of the problem. In this editorial written on September 1, 2011 for the opinion section of the Christian Science Monitor (CSM), John B. Anderson argues that we need to reform our voting system to allow more proportional representation and to allow third party or independent candidates a greater chance of being elected.
In his editorial, Anderson claims that because of our current voting system Americans are not able to elect a president they truly agree with and are not being fairly represented in Congress. The Democrat and Republican parties have been getting stronger in recent decades, making it so voters are forced to vote for a candidate from one of those two parties, even if then don’t truly agree with either candidate. The dominance of the these two parties, Anderson argues, makes it virtually impossible for a third party or independent candidate to win a presidential election. When voters who support a third party or independent candidate see that candidate’s support starting to slip Anderson says they often decide to settle for “the lesser of two evils” instead of continuing to back their top choice. This happens when voters fear their top choice has no chance of being elected but they still want to have a say in who gets elected. Anderson preposes we need to make changes to our voting system to allow third party and independent candidates a real chance of being elected.
Another problem Anderson sees is how we elect our representatives. He argues that Congress is not responsive to all Americans, it is only responsive to hard-line partisans. Anderson proposes that we need to adopt a proportional representation system. This means, says Anderson, that in states like Massachusetts, where Democrats regularly win all the house seats but a full third of the population votes Republican, three of the ten seats would be Republican, thus allowing the minority a voice.
Anderson’s proposals will be most appealing to people who are frustrated with the current state of our government and those who don’t agree entirely agree with either party. Many people see politicians as only caring about being reelected and not listening to the people they serve. But a third party or independent candidate offers hope that a politician might actually care about what the people think. Though this may not turn out to be true, it offers hope and since many people have lost faith in the people that run our country, a third party or independent candidate is be very appealing.
The argument in this editorial is very compelling. Anderson has written it so that he favors neither Democrats nor Republicans, talking about each party equally. This way Anderson hasn’t limited is his audience to a particular party or a certain set of beliefs. The tone is non-volatile which makes people more receptive to his argument. Anderson also does a good job of showing that his ideas actually have the potential to work. He shows that several different independent candidates for president have gained significant voter support, and some have even been a real threat. He also tells us that in recent years third party and independent candidates have won state elections and been elected to Congress. This shows readers that people really do want those candidates in office and that those candidates have a chance of being elected.
Anderson has served in Congress, run as an independent candidate for president - receiving seven percent of the popular vote, and served as board chair for FairVote. This shows readers that he really does know what he’s talking about and isn’t just some news paper contributer giving their two cents worth. These changes to our voting system that Anderson proposes are not just based on his own musing however. Anderson also gives examples of his proposal for how to elect representatives actually working in Illinois. Even though he cannot give us an example of his proposal for how we elect our president working, readers are inclined to believe that it will work as well because his other proposal has been proven to work.
This editorial is very well thought out and makes a very convincing argument. Because his writing style uses hardly any inflammatory words Anderson has made a wide range of people receptive to his argument. He is also considered a trustworthy source because he has had first hand experience with these issues. Another point that helps Anderson’s argument is the fact that it is published in the CSM, which is considered one of the most unbiased papers in the US. Many people come to the CSM looking for an unbiased view of things, and Anderson’s editorial provides them with his view on how to fix our voting system without revealing his political views on any other subject. Anderson has done a wonderful job writing and editorial that will convince his readers to consider his opinion on how we elect those running our country.
No comments:
Post a Comment