The second US-Iraq War
-
The Iraq war was opposed by a higher and higher percentage of the American public the
longer it continued, with more saying it was "not worth it'' than saying it was, by
May of 2004.
-
But
in the 2004 presidential election, both Bush/Cheney(R) and Kerry/Edwards(D)
had voted for the war.
(Bush started it; Kerry said shortly before the election
that "knowing what he knows
now" he still would have. However, Kerry and Edwards recanted after the election,
with Edwards writing an editorial whose opening words were
I was wrong.)
-
The only possibly-viable genuinely anti-war candidates lost the
Democratic primary and abandoned the race.
-
Thanks to two-party domination, anti-war voters had nowhere to turn, and those
candidates, had no useful way to continue running. (All the third-party presidential candidates
were against the war, but all combined got below 1% of the votes.)
-
With range voting, an anti-war candidate could have run with (in view of the polls)
a real chance to win, and without triggering "spoiler" voting pathologies.
More than 2 parties could become viable.
Even without winning, still genuine pressure would have been
exerted on the loser's opponents to address antiwar concerns.
-
How many lives would this have saved?
|
|