As we approach the midterm elections, many people are asking whether or not the Republicans will maintain their hold on Congress, or if the Democrats will finally get their act together enough to gain some seats. It’s an us vs. them fight between the Democrats and the Republicans. America is split down the middle again. Two sides. Two parties. Two trains of thought?

America is often described as a melting pot: a conglomeration or beliefs, races, ideologies, economic status, ethnicities, interests, you name it, we’ve got it. Well, almost. For such a large and diverse country, it strikes me as odd that we all seem to fit into two nice and clean categories: Republican and Democrat. How is it that a country full of all the attributes I listed above can be split so cleanly in two?

Third party politics have been historically, well … third. They represent only a fraction of voters in each election. There are only two third party politicians in Congress, one in each house. There has never been a third party president. In general, third party candidates only serve to siphon off voters from the other two parties. Using third parties to advance their own candidates is an old trick that Republicans and Democrats have used to get an edge in contemporary politics. Often a Democratic candidate will offer support of a Libertarian candidate, because they are more likely to win over Republican voters. Similarly, Republicans will support Green party candidates to redirect voters from the left. This was most controversially seen in the 2000 campaign race between Al Gore and George W. Bush. There are some that say the votes Gore needed to beat Bush were given to Ralph Nader, a Green party candidate, thus costing Gore the election.

Is this really the only role of third parties? There are four main third parties today: the Constitutional Party (conservative), the Reform Party (moderate), the Green Party (liberal) and the Libertarian Party. Can anyone else remember a time when one of these parties held a significant office? Me neither. But maybe third parties aren’t just the red-headed step-child of politics. Maybe they’re actually on to something; representing the public. American voters cannot be forced into two different boxes. There are too many issues being discussed — too many ideas on the table — to be categorized. What happens to a voter who is pro-life, anti-guns, anti-gay marriage and pro-free trade? Who do they vote for? What about someone who is anti-war, pro-big business, pro-environment and pro-privatization? Which party accurately represents them? None.

Therein lies the problem. Americans have become one-issue voters. The public is forced to pick the issue that is most important to them, and vote for the candidate who shares their view on that one issue. Forget the rest of the platform; it doesn’t matter anymore.

How has the American public become so marginalized by the American political system? Why do third parties flounder instead of gaining support? Is it a lack of education on issues and platforms? Is it apathy?

This week, Cornell is hosting the 2006 New York Gubernatorial debate between John Faso (R) and Eliot Spitzer (D). Here’s a quick look at the issues:

• Faso: Fiscally conservative, wants to cut taxes all around, reform Medicaid, strengthen agriculture, reduce government spending, strengthen homeland security, improve transportation and create more affordable housing options.

• Spitzer: Wants to create jobs, lower property taxes for the middle class, reform education to raise graduation rates, strengthen homeland security, reform healthcare/Medicaid to make it more affordable, strengthen transportation, pro-environment and create more affordable housing.

Both candidates have admirable goals, but neither fully embraces their target voters. I’m sure that there are plenty of New Yorkers who would like a clean environment and a stronger agricultural economy, but this does not seem possible given the separation of issues. What about those who would love education reform and lower taxes? Again, not gonna happen.

Unfortunately, when a more moderate candidate comes along, they are often rejected in the primaries. For example, John McCain and Joe Lieberman, both political moderates, fared poorly in the last round of primaries. Does McCain’s anti-torture stance really make him soft on terrorists? Or does he just value human life? Does Lieberman’s support of the Iraq war mean that he’s pro all wars? Or does he just value American freedom and democracy? Both of these candidates crossed party lines to form their platforms, and it may well cost them the election. If the primary system throws out the only candidates who may attract a wider constituency, what are we left with? Only the most extreme and polarized candidates remain when it comes to election time.

The void between the Republican and Democratic parties is still empty. What we need are several different parties, which each encompass more similar values. As a Republican, are you supposed to be pro-life and pro-guns? Does this not seem contradictory? Or as a Democrat, oppose the death penalty but support a woman’s right to choose? Again, this seems incongruous. America needs a hybrid political party, or even parties: political groups that truly include the beliefs and attitudes of Americans, regardless of what issues they support.

Hannah Stearns is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences. She can be reached at hes32@cornell.edu. Paint the Town Red appears alternate Mondays.