One of the ways the United States distinguishes itself from so many countries in this world is by its freedoms, primarily of speech, but also of the press and of religion. These are the freedoms that make us not only the most powerful nation on Earth but also one uniquely capable of change. Our freedoms are the source of our strength and the key to our future growth, the gateway to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Bound up in the notion of freedom is the mechanism of choice.

We have the freedom to choose the words we speak and write, and also to choose the religious faith (or lack thereof) that inspires us. When people talk about reproductive rights for women, they talk about the ‘right to choose.’ Freedom is about choice and choices.

And so it’s particularly odd, in a nation whose strength is so bound up with choice to have just two choices at the ballot box, Democrat or Republican. Certainly, there are instances when other choices are available, but so seldom, and almost never at the congressional and presidential levels, as to be insignificant in an overall discussion of political choice.

We pretend to have popular democracy in this country, especially when chiding our foreign friends (and enemies) who live under dictatorships or theocracies, but in truth what we have is a plutocracy, a rule by the wealthy. And while many readers will construe this as an attack on Republicans, it is rather a criticism of both parties, the ways they finance themselves, the ways they peddle influence and the ways they work to exclude other political options from emerging on the national stage.

Is there a great difference between a nation of 300 million (us) with two choices at the polls, and a country of say 23 million (Saudi Arabia) with only one choice (i.e. no choice at all)? Everyone laughed when Henry Ford said you could have your Model T in any color you wanted as long as that color was black, but we all bumble onward with the Republicans and the Democrats as our only political choices.

And isn't it funny that the Republicans and Democrats are the ones who could do away with the electoral college system, changing our method just enough to make every vote count, to rely on the will of the people rather than caucusing each state and counting voting blocks to determine who will get the most powerful position in the whole world?

A true, popular vote would more credibly represent the progress of a third party, or even a fourth, allowing a loose band of, just as an example, Green Party voters spread across wide swaths of states to band together and make their presence felt in national policy decisions by virtue of their numbers rather than their cash. Rather than garnering zero electoral votes, a third party candidate might finish the election with 1 million actual votes, a not insignificant tally and one that might accord due respect to an emerging platform or even a single, worthwhile idea.

Now, clearly the Republicans and Democrats each present credible solutions to some of the problems facing our country. We remain, despite the drawbacks of the two party system, the most powerful nation on Earth. But what we need is more ways to solve the very real problems Americans have, with healthcare, with the tax system, with foreign policy and unemployment. If you were a business looking for a vendor to complete a big and complicated project (like running the world’s top democracy), you would sure as hell solicit more than two bids, wouldn't you?

So as the 2004 Presidential Election forges onward and plastic-haired commentators sift through the ashes to tell us what America thinks about John Kerry and his (in)ability to topple George W. Bush, realize that the entire debate about our future is already framed as a choice between two fairly similar ways of doing things. And think about how involved you are in that choice, how empowered you feel to make a difference in the way our country operates.

Given the paucity of choices, how free do you really feel?

Emlyn Lewis