Spoiler Candidates

(Part 2 of "They're Looking In the Wrong Place")

Old Party strategists seem to envision election number theory using a simple balance scale. For them, there are only two possibilities: the left side of the scale (Democrats) and the right side of the scale (Republicans). As long as there are only two scale trays to count potential votes, it's relatively simple to see which side of the scale carries more weight. The introduction of another tray (or multiple other trays) to the scale tends to confuse and disrupt that simplistic idea and is therefore something to be feared and countered with extreme prejudice.

"A world of indifference, a world so out of touch. Overwhelmed by everything but wanting 'more' so much."

Now, I suppose that I could reduce my intelligence enough to see that perspective, but that type of logic only applies if you operate under the belief that there should only be two parties running. If what is being suggested (vote siphoning) is a valid premise, then the underlying presumption is that ALL Americans should be able to fall - goose step - behind either one political ideology or another so that there is no need for a third option - ever. At that point, you no longer have a choice; you have an illusion of choice. Red or blue. On or off. One or zero. This is binary thinking, and I could be horribly wrong, but I have to believe that we are better than that. We have 250 flavors of Coke, but only two political parties. There are 17 genders, but only two political parties. (Yes, that's hyperbole.) In a society that revels in its freedom to choose, why is it only in politics that we are force-fed a two-party system?

"Call it blind frustration. Call it "Blind Man's Bluff". Call each other names, your voices rude, your voices rough."

But they don't seem to see it that way. As far as they are concerned, all voters MUST align, goose step, behind one of their candidates. Any candidate stepping outside of their 'Overton window' (i.e., a range of policies politically acceptable to the mainstream population at a given time) must be derided as a "spoiler" candidate; a shill working to siphon votes away from their side, thus ensuring that the opposing side wins. Oddly enough, however, only partisan 'sheeple' bleat about stealing votes away from their candidates.

"A world of indifference, heads and hearts too full, careless of the consequence of constant push and pull."

Am I a "spoiler" candidate? Well, if it spoils the race enough for *both* of my Old Party opponents to lose, then "yes", I am a spoiler candidate.

References:

• [News Item] The Overton Window Collapse Theory
• [News Item] Chicken Littles Are Ruining America