Third party candidates do not get a fair shake in our 'democracy'

There is significant precedent for a long-standing problem in the U.S - a country that is supposed to have honest elections. Third Party candidates are not given an equal chance to make their case.

"A corporate party with two heads," - this is how Ralph Nader described the Democratic and Republican parties in 2000. This holds particular significance to me.

Ralph Nader is the first name that comes to mind when I think about third-party candidates getting screwed. I remember being absolutely incensed - even as a 14 year old kid - that he was excluded from the Presidential debates in the run-up to the 2000 Presidential elections.

Admittedly, I didn't care at the time that Pat Buchanan had also been kicked to the curb, but looking back now I see that was just as grievous an injustice. In fact, I believe that was one of the defining moments that made me open my eyes and start looking behind the veneer of politics. I wanted to know how it all worked. What I've learned since then is a sobering realization: We're not living in a democracy. Franklin Delano Roosevelt said it best: Presidents are selected, not elected. That seems so beautifully prophetic, but FDR was just calling a spade a spade.

There are two candidates in recent memory that show the fact that the media selects Presidents are Ron Paul, and Bernie Sanders. Both of these guys had phenomenal momentum behind their campaigns, and the media went silent on them while their respective parties decided against allowing them anywhere near a nomination. Of course, that's just an illusion, in the grand scheme of things. Especially with Bernie, who let himself be cucked twice and seemed to almost grovel at the altar to keep his feeble position of influence as a Senator. It's really an insult to include him in the same sentence as Ron Paul, but I had to make the connection. Credit where credit is due, and all that.

The problem goes much deeper with Sanders and Paul because they both have one key similarity other than their popularity - they both wanted to curtail the godlike power the Federal Reserve wields over our nation. It's important to understand what the central bank means to any nation, and the best way to do that is to heed the words of Mayer Amschel Rothschild.

“Give me control of a nation's money supply, and I care not who makes its laws.” said Rothschild. This simple quote explains why few politicians ever have the guts to challenge the Fed. And it's so much easier to keep them reigned in if they fall into one of two categories in the false dichotomy that is our broken political system. Third party candidates need not apply in significant numbers, lest we have to cede power back to the people, to whom the Federal government is supposed to really belong, but who have had their wealth seized and rights eroded. ( Side note: I plan on doing a podcast about James Traficant's speech on this subject soon )

Since 1920, there have only been four instances where third-party candidates even took an electoral vote. Robert La Follette in 1924, Strom Thurmond in 1948, George Wallace in 1968, and John Hospers in 1972. These were the lucky four.

If you want to know just how far third-party suppression has existed in our country, look at any election after the 1992 Presidential race. Ross Perot's vote tally sent a startling tremor through the uniparty establishment at large. 19,743,821 votes - more than 50% of the amount that George H.W. Bush received in that election, who only lost the popular vote to Bill Clinton by 5,805,256 votes.

It was after that point that things got significantly tougher for third-party candidates. Sure, they can make it onto the ballot if they either petition as an independent to be put on the ballot, or run as a write-in candidate, but the way ballots are made ensure that a write-in will never get a high-profile political victory. Making things easy for an intellectually lazy population was all it took. Write-ins take time and strokes of a pen, but checking the box by either Republican or Democrat and turning your ballot in 2 minutes after you get it is so much easier. I personally think that option should be illegal, but then I also believe rigorous testing to weed out low information voters should be administered as a requirement for registering to vote at all.

What should scare people, though, is that even if you jump through all the hoops as a third party political movement, those who are part of the uniparty can just deny your candidacy at all. It happened right here in my home state, where the State elections board voted 3-2 ( democrats ) to strike down a petition so that Green Party candidates would be left off the ballot.

“We are fighting for our democracy against this corrupt, lawless and partisan decision by the State Board of Elections. This case will determine whether the political establishment can abuse its power to stop another party from participating in elections.” Said Matthew Hoh, the Green Party’s U.S. Senate candidate. Or he would be, if not for Democrats wanting to prevent him from running at all to help their candidate’s chances. Democrats cry foul with their baseless claims of voter suppression, why not cry foul over their own party’s engagement in the suppression of political parties’ rights to challenge for public office?

The Green Party has since filed a lawsuit based on this situation, to no real effect, thus far.

There are so many more things I could say on this, as well as examples I could point to, but it's honestly nothing that'll solve the problem. I can only offer words of encouragement and implore you all to keep fighting the good fight, because the future of our nation depends on it.

Thanks for reading, if you enjoyed this article please consider subscribing to my Substack and following all my social media.