Resisting the forces of duality

Coke or Pepsi?

It's the simplest of concepts; the idea that essentially every aspect of reality can be reduced to some sort of dual relationship. Computers are based on the notion, for example; as tiny on/off switches represent ones and zeroes, and make programmatic logic possible. So that means duality is a good thing, then, right?

Not exactly.

It's possible to get too much of one member of a pair. You can be too hot or too cold, for example. It's also possible for duality itself to be far too restrictive. A world where Coke and Pepsi were not joined by Dr. Pepper, Sprite, Mountain Dew, A&W Root Beer, and so on would be a boring world indeed; as would a world devoid of all color save black, white, and shades of gray.

So why, then, do we permit our system of government to sink into the clutches of a restrictive duality? Why do we attempt, often in vain, to make complex concepts fit a Left/Right or Democrat/Republican view of the political landscape?

We don't; the situation is forced upon us.

It's promoted by our manner of elections, our history, our psychology, our nation's press, and those that benefit from the current political system. We're led to believe that the electoral equivalent of Coke and Pepsi serves as the only available options; and that Dr. Pepper, Sprite, Mountain Dew, A&W Root Beer, and the others simply do not exist.

It's understandable that the field must be narrowed somehow, but that doesn't mean the field has to be consistently narrowed to two options; and that definitely doesn't mean the field should be down to two options as soon as possible. A system of progressively-stricter requirements should be implemented whereby more viewpoints can be heard early-on, and those that garner minimum levels of support will continue to be heard. Such a system--as applied to presidential debates--would conceivably require ballot access in much of the country (say 25 states) in order to participate in the first debate, and the next debate would retain the ballot access requirement along with the addition of some other limiting factor (I'm not sure if polls are really the best option). All requirements would scale based on timing and how many debates had been held thus far. Alternatives could be provided early-on as well such as: 25 state ballot access OR X% in opinion polls. A graded process would certainly contrast sharply with the fixed requirement of 15% or more in at least 3 national polls that is currently used by the organizers of the televised debates; the "Commission on Presidential Debates." It would undoubtedly do much to restore representative governance to the people of the United States of America.