If you've done any selling (or much face-to-face buying) you already know what a "fatal alternative" is. It's a small verbal trick. If I'm trying to sell you a widget, I say something like "Can you get by with just one widget, or will you need several?" I might even stretch and ask "Can you pay cash, or shall I put it on an easy-pay plan?" The "fatality" is the assumption that not buying at all just isn't an alternative. Naturally, it works sometimes.

We've been stuck with a fatal alternative in politics... for a long, long time: Would you rather have a Republican or a Democrat? It's been going on so long now that a lot of people... about half the voters... just evade the question altogether, and don't vote. The problem with that is that it still leaves the results in the hands of those who do vote.

Most of us are aware that the election process is severely rigged in many ways. Those who are already in office are virtually guaranteed reelection unless they've been seriously bad.

In 2002 Senate races, 85 percent of the candidates who spent the most money were successful at the polls. The success ratio for big spenders was even higher in the race for U.S. House. Of the 431 races, 406 were won by the top-spending candidate -- a 94 percent success rate for the candidate with the most money.

Democrat Jon Corzine of New Jersey came to the Senate after spending an estimated $60 million of his personal fortune to get there - ($37.15 for each of the votes ) twice as much as anyone had spent previously to win election to the Senate. Democrat Mark Dayton in Minnesota spent $8.6 million of his own money to successfully unseat Republican incumbent Rod Grams 

House incumbent candidates overwhelmingly win reelection, and 2002 was no exception: Only 4 incumbents of 378 running lost. This victory percentage reflected all the usual advantages of incumbency: money, name recognition, the frank (the free mailing privileges that members of Congress enjoy), constituent service, and pork-barrel politics.
 
From 1988 through 2002, no single year shows less than 90 percent of incumbent members of the House winning reelection. 2002 is the all-time high at 98.9 percent. Only 3 incumbent senators lost... one of them being Grams in Minnesota. (more)

The average length of service in the House is about 9 years (4.6 terms); in the Senate, nearly 11 years (10.88 years) or 1.8 terms. Most of them could stay far longer if they chose to do so, but they've already qualified for a luxurious pension.

I know there are a lot of you out there who are fed up with both Republicans and Democrats. Our trust of politicians has been very low for a long time; polls show that we trust them about at about the same level as we trust used car salesmen.

Our election system, unlike many around the world, is a winner-takes-all system. No matter how few votes the winner gets, as long as it's more votes than anyone else, he is the winner. We have an enormous number of voters who dislike both major candidates, but will vote for one of them to help the "lesser of two evils". It's effectively a vote against one candidate rather than a vote for anyone.

How bad do the choices have to become before voters find some effective way of rejecting destructive policies from both major parties?

Suppose for a minute that these were the candidates being pushed by the major parties:

If these were the candidates for the major parties, would you still choose one of them to keep from "wasting your vote"? Would you switch your vote to a third-party candidate, knowing full well that either Adolph or Joseph was bound to win?

If you think that my example is too exaggerated, I must beg to differ. Hitler was elected to office by the German people, and they were delighted with him for a long time. Stalin was openly admired by our own President Roosevelt. Many programs of Hitler and Stalin have been adopted in the United States. Both were expert at pulling together massive and powerful government programs. Both were socialists. Both built dominant militaries much like the one that the United States seems to have such pride in now. In Iraq, we had "Shock and Awe"... Hitler had "Blitzkreig" (lightning war).

Both Hitler and Stalin were admired and beloved... almost worshipped... by their citizenry, and that continued until it was too late for the people to do otherwise... until each leader had such power that, as the Borg would put it, "resistance was futile".

Each year, our government grabs more power, and drains more taxes from us, making us weaker. More laws are written, more taxes are added, more citizens are imprisoned, and more war is waged. Is it really necessary for me to draw the parallels between our nation and Germany of 60 years ago? I really hope not... they should be obvious.

Do you think the American people could effectively overthrow our government by revolution? Libertarians ponder that question... because if we cannot... through legitimate means such as elections... stop the growth of government, it will continue to expand, becoming ever more destructive and oppressive.

At some point, resistance will become futile.
I really hope we don't wait that long.