Well, I thought that the issue of the death penalty would have grown in importance after the most recent execution of Governor George Dubya Bush Jr.'s Texas. Instead, the issue exited stage right. It isn't, and won't be, a major part of the campaign. That's because Bush's opponent, were Al Gore governor of Texas, also would have presided over 136 executions in his career. On the death penalty issue, Gore is as bad as Bush. That means he can't really criticize his opponent and that means no debate and no media coverage for the issue.

Chances are, there won't be debate over the death penalty in any major office races this season, because on this issue, Republicans and Democrats basically agree. Only the Greens have come out against the death penalty. So if you're anti-death penalty, you have to be pro-Ralph Nader, but only if that's the most important issue on your plate, and it probably isn't.

Nader also disagrees with Gore and Bush on free trade. I kind of doubt Nader is right on this (free trade has made life better for most people in the U.S.) but I it'd be nice to see his ideas taken into account (it's nonsense to have a WTO that doesn't enforce labor and environmental standards around the world). But Nader's ideas won't infiltrate the debate and there won't be a reasonable compromise of free trade with fair labor laws and sensible environmental policies. You'll no doubt read or hear in the coming months that Gore is in the pocket of environmentalists and labor while Bush belongs to corporate America. Don't believe it. Both Bush and Gore belong to corporate America. After all, as a high-ranking member of the Clinton administration, Gore didn't try to influence the WTO towards those reasonable and simple standards with would have been consistent with a free trade philosophy. So, if you want an environmentalist and labor candidate, you have to vote for Nader. But, you have to accept Nader's protectionism along with that. So, if you're inclined, as I would be, to vote for a free trade candidate who isn't afraid of asking for basic regulations that global corporations might not want but will learn to live with, you're out of luck.

If you want to legalize drugs, you have to vote libertarian. But again, that would have to be your most important issue. Libertarian philosophy carries some annoying baggage with it (they don't offer legalized drugs and fair labor practices, for example). Nader favors some liberalizing of the drug laws, but not total legalization and he doesn't talk much about it. Bush and Gore are both drug warriors and the issue of drug use in America will only be treated as a "scourge" and "tragedy" during this campaign. Same for other victimless crimes.

You can't vote for Buchanan and the reform party unless you're the type of conservative who is so far to the right that you think Bush Jr. is a moderate and Gore is a communist.

So, if you believe in the following things, which I don't find at all extreme or unreasonable, you have no candidate this year: free trade, global labor standards, global environmental standards, legalization of victimless crimes, and the abolition of the death penalty. That's reason enough, I think, to abolish the two party system and create publicly funded elections in which at least ten candidates get to participate in the initial race, with the run-off between the top three, and then another run-off if some one doesn't win 50% of the eligible vote. We need to completely overhaul the system, because as it stands anyone with views outside the mainstream is completely left out. Our democracy is no longer a marketplace of ideas, but a place where average notions rule and we need to shake things up a bit.

Michael Maiello gets a bit pessimistic when he thinks about elections.