_JPG.jpg)
Presidential Elections:
The divisive 2016 presidential election illuminated many of the issues with the current two-party system to the public. The two biggest competitors in the previous presidential election, Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton, were the nominees for their respected parties (the Republican and Democratic parties). Many Americans were not attracted to either of the two presidential nominees; they felt disappointed that those two individuals were the presidential candidates.
Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton were not the only two presidential candidates, but they were the only two candidates that had a genuine chance of winning: this is because of the American’s winner-take-all electoral system strongly favors a two political party dynamic. The party’s candidate with the largest share of the electorate wins, even if they only received 30% of the vote; this format creates a binary power dynamic where two strong parties teetering back and forth. Because of this structural bias, third-party or independent candidates likes Jill stein (Green Party) and Gary Johnson (Libertinism Party) are at a disadvantage. Even a tremendously popular candidate like Bernie Sanders, who ran as a Democrat, did not get on the ballot. Though he was registered as independent, Bernie Sanders ran as a Democrat because even he knew running as an independent was not feasible.
During the 2016 presidential election, Bernie Sanders was certainly most persons preferred candidate. He ran a presidential campaign that, surprisingly, elicited unprecedented enthusiasm and political interest from the American youth. Even though Bernie Sanders ran as a Democrat, he did not completely subscribe to the party’s agenda. To fellow politicians and many political observers, Bernie Sanders seemed to hold robust socialist, far left, beliefs: Bernie Sanders was a strong advocate of a large government that is responsible for providing the essentials for every American citizen, essentials like healthcare, nutrition, housing, education, etc.—evoking many of our western allies’ government’s as a paradigm. Bernie Sanders’ campaign rhetoric polarized the democratic party. The young and progressive liberal Democrats backed Bernie Sanders, the democratic maverick, while the traditional, older, Democrats gravitated towards the more conventional democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton. Bernie Sanders ended up losing many of the Democratic nomination to Hilary Clinton. Some political pundits claimed that Bernie Sanders’ loss was largely caused by his younger base and the inability to convert older, traditional Democrats, to his campaign. Though, in retrospect, many Democrats now regret opposing Bernie Sanders. The believe that he would have defeated president Donald Trump in the presidential election, where Hillary Clinton failed.
After losing the Democratic nomination, Bernie Sanders could have continued to pursue his presidential ambitions by persisting as an Independent candidate, but he knew if he took that path, he would have lost and inadvertently caused more injures; Bernie Sanders knew that our electoral “winner-takes-all” system favors the two-party dynamic, and by running as an Independent, he would probably be unintentionally assisting the Republicans by taking votes from away Hillary Clinton (similar to what happened in the 1992’s presidential election with George H. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Ross Perot).
Ross Perot was an Independent presidential candidate from Texas, an overwhelmingly Republican state. In the 1992 presidential election, Perot earned 18% of the popular vote. For this reason, the Republican nominee, and the incumbent president, George H.W. Bush, who is also from Texas, only managed to earn 37% of the popular vote. As a result, Bill Clinton, the underdog, won the 1992 presidential election with just 43% of the popular vote. Bill Clinton only won a majority in just home state, Arkansas.
The way in which America’s electoral systems--presidential and congressional—was engineered makes it incredibly challenging, almost near impossible, for a third-party or independent to win national or state level elections. Americans need to lobby to the Politician’s and the government to reform our electoral system, so that we can extricate ourselves from this current binary system, which threatens democracy.
The nation must deviate from its longstanding political party dynamic and adopt a pluralistic one. For the past 163 years, the President of the United States has been either a Republican or Democrat. Though, America has not always operated under a two-party system. In fact, during the first presidential election, none of the candidates were affiliated with any political party (there were none). The first American president, George Washington, was opposed to the idea of political parties involved with governing. After George Washington left office, the country partitioned into different political parties, the Federalist and Democratic-Republican parties. Eventually, the Federalist party dissolved, and the Democratic-Republican party divided into the two parties we know today--birthing the two-party system.
This two-party duopoly has persisted into the present because of Americas unique electoral systems, creating many of the issues we face today.
Issues:
Representation:
One issue which has plagued our nation’s democracy throughout the past decades is unfair representation in the states and the national government. Besides the fact that the current two-party system has injured our presidential elections, it has, also, done a great deal of damage to congress and distorts our ability to justly elect representatives. This binary system has fomented partisanship in elections. This partisanship has manifested itself into practices like gerrymandering, which have impeded fair representation. “By constitutional design, Congress should be responsive to all Americans, not just hard-line partisan” (Anderson).
In congressional elections, a candidate needs just 51% of the votes to represent the entire district. This is not an effective system to decide government representatives, because state districts should be proportionally represented in congress. If a congressional candidate only needs to win a hair over 50% to represent all of the district’s constituents--even the 49% of those who may have opposed him. That candidate can act for the majority, ignoring the minority. He/she can presume the majority of his constituents, that he plans to satisfy, will reelect him, regardless.
Gerrymandering:
Gerrymandering is defined as a controlling party designing abstract shaped districts for partisan gain: the controlling party chooses the constituents it knows are partial to it. “Since 1812, gerrymandering has been increasingly used as a tool to divide and distort the electorate” (Klaas). The word gerrymandering originates from an 1812 political cartoon that illustrates then Massachusetts Governor, Elbridge Gerry, re-drawing a senate district to look like a salamander.
Photo: (https://www.fairvote.org/new_poll_everybody_hates_gerrymandering)
The practice of partisan gerrymandering is pernicious and one of the most salient threats to democracy. It allows political parties to become the majority in congress while being the minority. Even this past presidential election’s result can be attributed to the malignant issue: current President, Donald Trump, lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton, though he still won the electoral college, because the rural states’ districts were disproportionally drawn to Republican avail. Partisan practices are the biggest contributor to how the Republicans won a majority in Congress--only roughly 30-40% of persons identify as Republican.
Lack of variety:
Another issue that plagues our republic is the lack of political diversity. American’s look around at the political landscape and discover no variety in politics. Public sentiment has begun trending towards apathy—people feel that any politician/party is just more of the same: “The truth is that our two-party system offers no real choice” (Paul). Nearly every election is between the major two parties. This causes Americans to feel circumscribed, to them, it appears that they are just between the two similar parties with superficial differences. Ron Paul, former independent presidential candidate, argues in his essay “Protesting the Two-Party System by Voting for Third-Party Candidates” that both the Democratic and Republican party share the same agendas, with small, nuance, different that allow them to be superficially distinguishable from one another. “George Wallace was not the first to recognize that there's "not a dime's worth of difference" between the two parties.” (qtd. In Paul).
With a more pluralist political party system, Americans, and politicians, will have the opportunity to choose from a larger pool of political parties, different political pockets that possess like-minded individuals. This will allow more people to be properly represented and will allow for more egalitarian legislation--avoiding problem of a majority party making unilateral decisions. There are many examples that a multi-party system can prosper. For example, counties like Japan and England have already adopted pluralistic systems; both nations have over a dozen parties holding seats in their governments. Frankly, the two-party system is uniquely American.
The current two-party system’s impact on our government has curtailed third and independent parties’ success. Like I have already stated, America’s electoral system’s structure is advantageous for the two established parties, while, also, creating difficult challenges for smaller parties.
Disadvantages:
Gerrymandered:
Again, one factor that attributes to the failure of third-parties is partisanship. For instance, gerrymandering is not only danger to democracy, but is a leading factor towards the failure of third-parties. If either of the two established parties draws a district to preserve that district as a partisan stronghold and to obstruct the success of the other party, how is a smaller party supposed to gain support in that district? By creating more equal and diverse districts, we can not only relieve the republic of one of its most salient issues, but we can create a leveled playing field for all parties to compete.
Most Americans aren’t concerned gerrymandering, some don’t even know it happens; it is not an attractive topic like healthcare or a political scandal, but the practice is insidious: “… gerrymandering intensifies every decade regardless, because it's not a politically "sexy" issue. When's the last time you saw a march against skewed districting?” (Klaas)
Ideology cannibalization:
Another factor that attributes to the failure of third parties is the fact that most politicians are apprehensive to run on a third-party ticket--even if they share beliefs. They know the challenges that hinder third-parties. If they truly desire a political career, its best for them to run as either a Democrats or Republican. Also, many politicians who identify as independent still end up running as one of the two major parties, like Bernie Sanders did this previous election (2016). The politicians who convert to one of the large parties also bring their individual and unorthodox ideology with them. We observed this with Bernie Sanders and his Democratic-Socialist ideology. The Democratic party began to absorb some of his more popular beliefs-like healthcare and education. We can also observe instances of this cannibalization happen in the Republican party; the tea party (now The Freedom Caucus) is an enclave of the larger Republican party. Members of the Tea Party identify as Republicans, though they dramatically farther right. The members of the Tea party know they would not have as much clout if they were their own separate party. The smaller third-parties usually get cannibalized by the larger parties’ if the smaller parties become popular enough.
Lack of media exposure:
One last factor that attribute to the failure of third-parties is the lack of media exposure. Independent or third-party candidates do not, usually, receive attention from the mainstream media. In addition, independent or third-party candidates seldom get invited to general debates. In the previous presidential election, only Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were invited to the presidential debate, even though Jill Stein (Green Party) and Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party) were also presidential contenders. This is detrimental to third-parties and retards any success because exposure fuels most campaigns. Most third-parties are already handicapped by their lack of sufficient campaign funding. So, the free media exposure would give them parties the push they need to succeed.
Conclusion:
The two-party duopoly has crippled the American government for centuries. The current two-party dynamic has debilitation consequences which injure our nation. The current system threatened the future of our democracy, and we, as Americans, need to realize this before its too late. We need to lobby to our government representatives to reform our electoral system, so, just like our economy, we can have a free market on political parties instead of the Coke-Pepsi like doubly we have, now. We need to send a message that we want fair representation, and a more diverse pool of political parties: “… people need to vote for third-party candidates to show their dissatisfaction and to send a message to those in power.” (Paul). Though most of us dislike third wheeling, but maybe having a political third wheel wouldn’t be so terrible.
Bibliography:
Abramson, Paul R., John H. Aldrich, Phil Paolino, and David W. Rohde. "Third-Party and Independent Candidates in American Politics: Wallace, Anderson, and Perot." Academy of Political Science, 1 Oct. 1995: 349-67. Akron Libary. Web. 21 Apr. 2017.
Anderson, John B. "A Viable Third Party Would Alleviate Government Gridlock." Government Gridlock, edited by Margaret Haerens, Greenhaven Press, 2015. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in Context,
Klaas, Brian. "Gerrymandering is the biggest obstacle to genuine democracy in the United States. So why is no one protesting?" Washington Post, 14 Feb. 2017. Opposing Viewpoints in Context
Paul, Ron. "Protesting the Two-Party System by Voting for Third-Party Candidates." Does the Two-Party System Still Work?, edited by Noah Berlatsky, Greenhaven Press, 2010. At Issue. Opposing Viewpoints in Context
Thumbnail photo credit: (https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2017-11-29/millennials-want-a-third-political-party-poll-shows)