The Two-Headed Tyrant

The Two-Headed Tyrant is immortal.
It can grow a new pair of heads every
four years. It's a master of deceit.
It can tell the same story a million
different ways. It can feign progress,
create the illusion of choice, and reign
over democracy. It's a specialist of
misinformation, misrepresentation,
and misdirection.
And still it stands.
No matter which way you slice, dice,
or divide it, the equation always yields
a two-party system. It's been around
for almost 200 years. It was devised to
reconcile the conflicting philosophies
of Jefferson and Hamilton, in hopes
of representation for majority rule.
Since then, it's evolved into a game
of supremacy with money at its core.
Our government is made up of a Republican Party, a Democratic Party, and
an Everyone Else Party-given that the multitudes of everyone else are in the
"imaginary number" realm. Math is perhaps the one subject in which being
politically correct isn't a requirement for politicians. The third-party taboo
assures voters that supporting a candidate outside of the two-party horizon is
just throwing away a vote.
Lobbyists even go as far as to assert that third-party votes "steal" from the
two-party candidates. When did voting for the most popular nominees become
a requirement? Only about 60 percent of all registered voters cast a vote on
Election Day. The two-party system does not allow for a "no" vote. Merely
going down to the polling booth doesn't automatically suggest that the voter
fully agrees with a candidate; all it means is that they prefer one over the other,
thus arguably voting for the "lesser evil."
Why is the system set up this way? Is it so difficult to conceive of a nominee
whose ideology can be differentiated from the reigning philosophy? Shading
black and white over the views of the American people has not only polarized
the nation, but also paralyzed it. For decades, we've been repeating the same
process and expecting a different outcome.
The two-party super glue is a fabrication of money and power. The two-party
autocracy appoints and supports those two candidates who can best fit the preexisting
mold. Anybody who opposes the
status quo is prohibited from the debates
due to lack of endorsement from those in
power. The working class American is only
exposed to those candidates who have enough
sponsorship to provide the absurd amount
of funds necessary for running a successful
The only thing separating two-party
nominees' popularity from their third-party
counterparts is exposure. Exposure is only
gained through money. Unless money
automatically equates to a better ideology,
then the two-party candidates aren't
necessarily the most representative of the
American population.
A representative democracy is designed to
represent the people. There is no fine print
disclaimer to suggest that the only people of
concern are those with the most money. The
fact that the two-party system has been around
since the 1850s is not testament that it works
to the benefit of the nation. The two-party
system only benefits the Democratic and
Republican leaders, the big businesses, and
the money that appoints the major political
nominees, thus controlling the primary
The two-party system halts progress by virtue of transferring authority down the same line, regardless of left or right.

Every four years, registered citizens go down to their polling booths and cast a vote for either the Democrat or the Republican, believing that their vote makes a difference.

Option does not mean choice. If the only votes that count are those cast for the two-party candidates, then democracy is a two dimensional concept.

Until the third-party candidates are given a fair chance at exposure, this American ideal does not stand. In the words of George Carlin, "It's called the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it."