Politics:
Two Parties, One Dilemma.
May 28, 2023
Democracy is defined as government by the people. In America, that often assumes there are only two types of people: Democrats and Republicans. It also assumes there are only two ways of looking at politics; two ways to move forward; two choices we should be given. Even though Gallup polls show 42% of respondents identified as Independents in 2021. While less than one quarter of them claimed neither left or right leanings, the question remains why there hasn’t been a stronger push for third-party candidates.
You don’t have to look far to see how society mirrors feuding families in the mountains. From bumper stickers and yard signs to potshots in conversation, we are very much a country divided. It’s to the point where opposing voters have stopped talking to one another. Some might attribute this to how personal people consider the issues. It could also be the product of strategic manipulation, a means to ensure ballot boxes and campaign coffers stay filled.
By nature, two-party systems are polarizing. That’s a valuable asset in our attention economy. So, it should come as no surprise when the topics chosen for debate carry an emotional charge. But this model was challenged by Ross Perot’s 1992 presidential bid. His campaign focused on issues like education reform and fiscal responsibility – headlines that wouldn’t sell newspapers. An opposition to NAFTA held by neither opponent. A strong performance on stage brought his poll numbers to a 39% peak, ahead of both Bush and Clinton before settling at 19% of the vote on election day. While this wasn’t enough to win, it was enough for Republicans to blame Perot for Bush’s loss, and for the broader consensus that third parties only serve as spoilers.
The idea soon resonated with Democrats when Al Gore fell to the second Bush during 2000’s race. Studies show votes gathered by Ralph Nader of the Green Party were largely from left-leaning supporters who would have voted for Gore in his absence. They swung Florida. Later, the election. Coincidentally, the Commission on Presidential Debates (headed by the two major parties) established a rule in 2000 that a candidate must gather at least 15% support in five national polls to be included. One can only imagine how much more of a disruption Nader would have been if allowed on stage.
Let’s say that third parties are spoilers, not because they lack unique perspective, but because they’re locked into the same binary on sensitive issues. Perot’s run should teach us that this only speaks to a systemic problem in America. The principles of good government never change: balanced budgets, defined scope, and personal accountability. Yet many who stand to profit have altered that vision for the sake of power and visceral response. What’s worse, they’ve convinced people that prosperity comes by granting them more of it.
Founding Father John Adams once stated, “a government of laws, not men.” We abandon this framework every time we indulge identity politics. He alludes to it by adding, “there is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other.” Even back then, Adams knew this dynamic leads to ruin. He knew that men would stretch the boundaries of law for party allegiance; that the direction and extent would be defined by this dichotomy.
Yet there’s little dissent voiced in what polls show as a vast sea of Independents. People have embraced the simplicity of two choices in matters without ever stopping to question the jurisdiction of policymakers in them. The two parties have done their best to ensure that voice will not share their microphone. And there are two measures needed to rectify this broken democracy.
One, remember that their role is to oversee government spending and agency, not to forge national identity or cultural mores. Those are already established through the origin of this country, the Constitution, and a complex social fabric that transcends any individual. Two, adopt election reform; specifically, proportional representation in our House elect and ranked-choice voting for the presidential.
The former would allow for Adams’ vision of “in miniature, an exact portrait of the people at large.” It would create a voice in areas mostly dyed one political color, boosting voter turnout. Perhaps just as important, it would eliminate the issue of gerrymandering, as district lines become less relevant. A logical method taps the party-list system now used in over 80 countries. Under the open variant, ballots are composed of candidate names and associated party. Every voter gets one selection that contributes to both categories. The final tally decides who and which party(ies) will be appointed based on the number of seats.
In the nation’s critical races, many have been conditioned to vote strategically rather than objectively. It’s proven by the “spoiler” label previously mentioned. But this can be solved through ranked-choice voting. Rather than marking a single candidate, each is marked in the order of preference. If no one candidate gets a plurality of the vote, the lowest ranking’s ballots get reviewed, and their second choices selected are added to the appropriate opponent. That process continues until someone gathers over 50%. Not only would this have changed the outcome of past popular votes, it would allow complete transparency in public sentiment – a hallmark of freedom.
According to Pew Research, there are roughly eight sub-parties within the big two. Only 15% of the general public report leaning in neither direction. Factor that with the Gallop numbers, and it’s clear why many self-described Independents are left waving a red or blue pennant on election day. Even if they prefer a third party, those who show up don’t want to waste their vote. Ranked-choice eliminates this. What’s more, it cuts down on political extremism, as moderates find a new viable alternative. Mudslinging would decline with candidates less likely to risk losing voters' second preference. Electioneering shifts away from all or nothing. But perhaps the most understated benefit is that third parties would likely gather at least the 5% minimum tally on election day to qualify for public funds in the next presidential run, those already allocated.
Some might argue these changes still won’t level the playing field for Independents. And it probably would take another sweeping movement like Perot’s to bring us a presence we haven’t had since 1850. Even so, they’d be critical first steps in tabling important issues he fought for. There are over 31 trillion reasons why the time is now.
