The/
Partisan voters deny independents significance
SHAWN MEYSENBURG is
a sophomore news-editori
al major and a Daily
Nebraskan columnist
The most recent scandal involving
our president has caused me to won
der: What hasn’t he been accused of?
Has he made any pacts with the
Prince of Darkness? Has he ever cop
ulated with an animal? Has he ever
cheated on his taxes?
I’m beginning to think that our
president has no regard for generally
accepted beliefs about what’s right
and wrong, but I don’t care. He hasn’t
been such a bad president. He may
not be the reincarnation of Abraham
Lincoln or FDR, but he hasn’t really
screwed up the country, yet.
Sure, it’s possible (even likely)
that he’s engaged in extramarital sex
ual activity, but is that really such a
bad thing for a president (or any other
elected official) to do? Absolutely
not.
Adultery is a perfectly acceptable
practice these days. If a person
decides his or her marriage is unsatis
factory, that person should feel free to
pursue other relationships. I’m not
married, but if I ever do enter into that
relationship, I want to have an open
marriage. The practice of lifelong
monogamy by married couples is
hopelessly old-fashioned. Why
should our public servants be expect
ed to maintain this archaic standard?
Furthermore, politicians work
hard for the American people. Their
jobs are stress-filled and demoraliz
ing. They may, on occasion, need a
passionate affair with a luscious
young woman or man for rejuvena
tion and relaxation.
Adultery may be perfectly OK,
but what about less-than-honorable
business practices? Should a politi
cian’s history of shady business deal
ings be held against him or her? I
don’t think so.
Hey, somebody has to make
money. Giving other people the shaft
to make a buck is what the American
dream is all about. In this world, only
two types of people exist: exploiters
and victims. You must choose which
one you will be.
I don’t mind being a victim, but
some elected officials would rather
exploit the weak. That’s fine with me.
If you love money, you should amass
it any way you can.
Speaking of money, how do you
feel about campaign finance reform?
I don’t like it.
Why should we care about the ori
gins of politicians’ campaign funds?
Running a political campaign
depletes candidates’ coffers rapidly.
I’d hate to have my fund-raising hands
tied by a bunch of bureaucratic cam
paign finance laws.
Some people support these laws
using the logic that candidates could
be bribed into voting a certain way if
they received a large donation from a
given group. This may be true, but I
doubt most politicians would allow
themselves to be so easily manipulat
ed. I know I wouldn’t.
For example, if I were a senatorial
candidate and the National Rifle
Association was foolish enough to
send me a donation, the gun-toters
wouldn’t be buying my vote. I’d still
vote in favor of gun-control legisla
tion. I have complete faith in the lead
ers of this country to vote as their
consciences dictate. We don’t need
campaign-finance regulations.
Some people become upset when
politicians fail to make good on their
campaign promises. Some people
believe that politicians have a tenden
cy to make promises in order to win
votes, even if they have no intention
of attempting to fulfill these promis
es.
While I can understand voters’
frustration, I don’t think they should
become too upset. I’m sure our elect
ed officials try to do what they’ve
promised to do. They’d never make a
promise during a campaign just to
win votes.
For example, it seems like almost
every candidate promises to try to cut
taxes, but tax rates continue to
increase. Some see this as a failure on
the politicians’ part, but is that really a
fair view? Certainly not. I’m sure our
politicians labor night and day com
bating tax increases. It’s just that we
voters keep demanding more and
more of our government.
Since government-funded pro
grams aren’t free, our taxes go up.
High taxes are our fault; they don’t
represent a failure on the part of our
elected officials.
I jjuess I have only one bone to
pick with some of the fine people
we’ve elected to public office: Why
do they feel the need to present them
selves as such moral supermen?
They’re just human beings, so why do
they insist on trying to look like
demigods?
Just once, I’d like to hear a politi
cian make a speech like this: “Sure, I
cheat on my spouse. Who doesn’t?
And yes, I smoked a little dope in col
lege, but who didn’t? I’ve made my
money ruthlessly, and I’m not
ashamed of it. Family values... what
the hell are those?
“In conclusion, I’d like to say that
I’ll vote the way I promise to vote, but
don’t expect any miracles. I’m not the
Messiah. I’m just an imperfect human
being, but I’ll do the best job I can.”
I’d much rather hear one speech
like this one than 10,000 of the sancti
monious, professional speech writer
written, b.s.-filled monologues we
hear from politicians now. I just wish
our politicians could feel free to be
honest about their personal lives. Why
should we let our outdated moral
principles prevent us from electing
qualified people to public office?
I’ll be glad when our leaders can
be free to philander and exploit if they
so desire.
Because, hey, we all know that
character doesn’t matter. It’s the
issues that count, right?
I •
Three’s a crowd
Independents are denied significance of partisan voters
LORI ROBISON is a
senior news-editorial
major and a Daily
Nebraskan columnist.
A small but revealing miracle
went all but unnoticed about a week
and a half ago right here in Lincoln.
It went almost unnoticed by the
media, receiving only a couple of
paragraphs in the Daily Nebraskan.
There were no group discussions or
radio call-in shows devoted to
exploring this nearly unprecedented
event. Life continued as normal.
But the significance of this mir
acle should not be overlooked. For
the first- time in recent memory, a
Dili passed tnrougn a domestic leg
islative body with little argument
from representatives of either polit
ical party.
There were no heated debates.
Few senators wasted time
wrestling with possible outcomes
or consequences should the bill be
embraced or rejected.
In fact; there was almost a total
consensus across the board.
The proposal, sponsored by
Sen. George Coordsen of Hebron,
would have allowed registered inde
pendent voters the option of casting
partisan ballots in Nebraska’s pri
mary elections.
According to the bill, these vot
ers would have been given a voice
in the selection of Democratic or
Republican Party candidates for the
county, state and national elections.
Coordsen said in a Jan. 22 DN
article that LB905 was an attempt
, to “rejuvenate interest in politics”
and encourage “more of the state’s
large number of independent voters
to vote.”
dui surprise, surprise: iou
guessed it, dear reader; the proposal
was resoundingly rejected by mem
bers from both parties, sent back in
exile to the nether region to rest in
peace with the rest of the ludicrous,
failed proposals.
In the same article, Beth Smith,
executive director for the Nebraska
Republican Party, and Ken Haar,
executive director for the Nebraska
Democratic Party, BOTH AGREED
(a miracle!) that the bill, if passed,
would reduce their parties’ political
influence.
Well, we can’t have that, can
we? After all, the political system
of the United States may cease to
exist as we know it, and what a
tragedy that would be!
Smith and Haar, and every other
political representative associated
with the country’s two ruling par
ties, are probably justified in feel
ing somewhat threatened by the
possibility of those not indoctrinat
ed contaminating the political bal
ance by having a voice in the
ivcpuuiitmi aiiu -L-'CiiiUV/i allv pi Hila
ry processes.
And after all, as Smith said in
the article, independent voters are
free to align themselves with either
political party if they wish to vote
in the primary elections.
In other words, if you can’t beat
‘em, join ’em. Besides, “like us,”
she said, “they have the ultimate
vote in November.”
But while I can’t help but be
amazed at an actual agreement
across the partisan board, I am also
not surprised that both parties
agreed to keep their talons firmly
embedded in the political pie.
According to figures from the
office of the secretary of state for
Nebraska, there were more than
127,000 registered independent
voters in the state as of Feb. 27,
1997. While that figure may not"
seem like much when compared to
the 502,030 registered Republicans
or the 384,667 registered
Democrats (not including military
or absentee voters), independent
voters still make up a consequential
But while I can’t help but be amazed at an actual agreement
across the partisan board, I am also not surprised that both parties
agreed to keep their talons firmly embedded in the political pie.”
minority of voters.
No small wonder, then, that
Nebraska senators agreed to refuse
the growing numbers of disenfran
chised independent voters equal
footing with partisan voters.
There’s no compelling reason,
many say, to allow independent vot
ers into the inner sanctum of the
primary process of a party they
don’t belong to.
After all, they can vote in the
national elections and for candi
dates of any party they choose,
right?
The Republican and Democratic
parties aren’t the only ones on the
ballot, correct?
Ah, but that is not entirely an
aviuiaic suuciiicm. xi s irixe luciuai
ly, but let’s be honest - what chance
do third party/and independent can
didates truly have to gain power in
the current political system?
Michael Parenti is a social and
political scientist who received his
doctorate in 1962 from Yale
University. He has been described
as a major voice for the political
progressives in the United States
and has taught at Howard
University and California State
University in Northridge.
Parenti points out in his 1995
book, “Democracy for the Few,”
that the rules in place for indepen
dent and third-party candidates are
restrictive. What’s more, these reg
ulations were made by representa
tives and officials from both of the
ruling parties.
These political leaders claim to
be looking after our collective
interest by keeping the “kooks” and
frivolous candidates out of the elec
tion process.
But according to Parenti’s book,
Iowa and New Hampshire, states
which require only 1,000 signatures
and allow ample time for indepen
dent and third-party candidates to
gain access to the ballot, have not
been overrun with radical Nazi can
didates from hell.
Still, it comes as no shock that
most states have laws which often
discourage third-party candidates
access to the ballot. In fact, many
states, including California,
Missouri and Oklahoma, require
tens of thousands of signatures to
even allow the voting public to con
sider choosing them for office.
In Nebraska, registered voters
who sign a petition for an indepen
dent or third-party candidate are
banned from voting in the primaries
- whether they are a registered
Republican or Democrat or not.
And in national elections,
Parenti said, third-party candidates
must haVe"750,000 signatures to get
placed on the ballot in all 50 states,
whereas Republican and
Democratic candidates only have to
get 25,000 signatures.
According the Federal Election
Campaign Act, millions of public
dollars are awarded for Republican
and Democratic national conven
tions, primaries and presidential
elections.
In contrast, third parties only
receive funding after an election,
and then only if they garnish 5 per
cent of the national vote.
There seems to be a paradox,
here, being perpetrated by the rul
ing parties. Without funding - and
the subsequent, extremely expen
sive advertising and campaigning -
no candidate is likely to receive sig
nificant voting shares. And without
voting shares, no public funds are
forthcoming.
In addition, the abysmal voting
percentages in this country (one of
the lowest in the industrialized
world) only serve to keep the status
quo firmly in place, with no real
reform to the selection process on
the horizon.
Reagan’s “overwhelming victo
ries” in the national elections of
1980 and 1984, for example, were
made possible by receiving only 30
percent of the vote from the eligible
voting public - almost 50 percent
of those eligible to vote stayed
home.
Parenti’s book referred to sever
al surveys regarding voter apathy,
including one that found many vot
ers were angry and frustrated about
the choices available. And another
survey found that most of the
_ _1 _1 *_1
iiauvm 9 vigiiui giauvi9 uvii^v^u
third parties in the political system
were actually illegal!
Perhaps it’s the constant “battle
of the powers that be” - hurling
allegations of stealing ideas, dig
ging through personal garbage and
name calling - that serves to keep
the public distracted from the real
matters at hand.
It’s like some kind of soap
opera, only this one has a multi-bil
lion dollar budget and is being paid
by each and every taxpayer. ^
In this era of selling candidates
like a bar of soap, it’s a small won
der then that many voters take no
more interest in participating in the
electoral process than they do in
their decision on which brand of
shampoo to use.
And the last thing either of the
major parties need or want is anoth
er political group gaining a
foothold and shaking things up.^g
i ney can agree on mat. ,
Will miracles never cease?