It's Time For a Few Alternatives
I Don't Know How We're Going to Make Them Viable, But We Need More Than Two Parties
(My apologies for not posting over the weekend as I usually do. I had a death in the family on Thursday morning and I kind of blue screened for a few days.)
When the United States was first born, our Founding Fathers feared the existence of political parties. They saw them as a source of division and potentially war. This was despite the fact that the political parties in the US prior to the ratification of the Constitution, the Federalists (those who favored the adoption of the Constitution) and the Anti-Federalists (those who did not want a Constitution or the strong federal government it created.). In some ways those battles are still being fought. It is even said that George Washington ran for a second term to prevent parties from tearing the young country apart.
When Washington stepped aside as president in 1796, he memorably warned in his farewell address of the divisive influence of factions on the workings of democracy: “The common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.”
“He had stayed on for a second term only to keep these two parties from warring with each other,” Randall says of Washington. “He was afraid of what he called ‘disunion.’ That if the parties flourished, and they kept fighting each other, that the Union would break up.”
By that time, however, the damage had been done. After the highly contentious election of 1796, when John Adams narrowly defeated Jefferson, the new president moved to squash opposition by making it a federal crime to criticize the president or his administration’s policies. Jefferson struck back in spades after toppling the unpopular Adams four years later, when Democratic-Republicans won control of both Congress and the presidency. “He fired half of all federal employees—the top half,” Randall explains. “He kept only the clerks and the customs agents, destroying the Federalist Party and making it impossible to rebuild.”
I’m going to avoid the obvious comparison to modern politics and labelling things as “misinformation”. That’s another topic for another post.
Having mentioned all of that I have to disagree slightly. Party politics have existed since long before the birth of the Founding Fathers. I’m not going to go deep into the history here because there’s too much of it, but even Ancient Rome had its Optimates and Populares dating back to 133 BC. Some things just don’t change. The mere existence of parties does not necessarily lead to the breakup of nations.
Just ask the British. A quick look at the UK Electoral Commission page reveals the existence of thirty different parties. They’ve had a parliament since the year 1215 (no, that’s not a typo). Eight hundred years in existence, thirty parties currently in existence and it’s still here. That, in and of itself is proof that a country can survive with political parties. But here’s the thing: They have thirty parties. People vote for parties that they know won’t win the Prime Minister’s office because they’ll at least get someone into Parliament and maybe into the cabinet if things work out right.
The situation in the United States is far different. We are caught between two parties. The consensus on one side is that the current president usurped his seat by cheating in the previous election and doesn’t have enough remaining brain power to run a pencil sharpener without supervision. The other side thinks that the former president, currently running again, is literally Hitler and will end democracy and put people in camps if elected.
And yes, I’m a conservative, but that’s my attempt at being equally fair to both sides.
The problem to me, though, isn’t the two candidates as such. It’s that there are only two candidates. A little confusion wouldn’t be a bad thing here. If we had the choice between a multitude of options we might just have a chance at ridding our country of a large amount of animus. It’s harder to hate on everyone who isn’t in your party if there are twelve parties instead of two. The lines are fuzzier. Some things overlap and some don’t. There are gradations instead of opposites. Different parties and different platforms equals more options.
I haven’t studied this closely, and could be wrong so take this for what it’s worth, but it seems to me that unrest is most common in places with either single or dual party systems. In the case of a single party system where there is absolutely no option violence is the only way to effect change. In places like the USSR, where all citizens were legally required to vote, but were all forced to vote for the same party, dropping a ballot into ballot box mattered only insofar as it kept the voter out of trouble. Nothing changed. Power remained with the party that had it and their chosen representative.
In a two part system there is a natural tension that is unavoidable. Wars have two sides as do boxing matches. Sporting games have two sides. Chess matches have two sides. When there are two side it’s either me/you or us/them and fractures happen. That’s the way life works.
When there are more than two options, things open up and aren’t as tense. Think about it. I’ve been a Detroit Lions fan for basically four decades now. I remember seeing guys like Eric Hipple and Billy Sims play. I love my team but I don’t hate the other teams. Why? In part because there are thirty-one other teams. They’ve all beat my team at on point or another so why worry about it? I do get a wee bit annoyed with our in-division rivals (Chicago, Minnesota and Green Bay.) but I don’t truly hate them the way many Americans hate the “other” part.
So why aren’t there more parties? I see two reasons. I’ll attempt to offer solutions further down the post.
The first problem is that most Americans see voting for a third (or fourth, fifth, sixth, etc.) party as being a wasted vote. They don’t want to vote for someone who has no chance of winning. If you’ve ever seen the opening credits of 1970’s Patton then you know that Americans love a winner but will not tolerate a loser. A party that won’t win has no chance of getting votes because they won’t win. Of course, the reason they don’t win is they can’t get votes. It’s a vicious cycle. And it makes sense.
The solution to this problem is to start small. It’s too later for the Libertarians and the Green Party. They went about things the wrong way and screwed themselves. For a new party though, grass roots is the way to go. Elect a mayor or go smaller. Elect a member of the city council or a school board, then go for a mayor. Once you’ve set yourself up in a city and can consistently win a seat or two, try to elect a state Representative there. Win a couple of those and then go for a Congressional representative and/or a state Senate seat. (The exception being in Nebraska which only has a unicameral legislature. There’s no second step there.) After you’ve sent a few reps to Congress try to get a Senator elected. Once you’ve gotten a few Senators elected, run a Presidential candidate AFTER YOU’VE PROVEN THAT YOU CAN WIN ELECTIONS.
It wouldn’t be easy. It wouldn’t be quick. It should be possible if a determined group of people all pushed together.
The other major problem I see is how the President is elected. I’ve always assumed that the Electoral College was intended, at least in part, to address this specific issue. I have no evidence to that effect though and the biggest reason the EC was invented was to keep the larger states from dominating the smaller ones in presidential elections. Your high school history teacher lied to you.
If we went back to voting for electors instead of presidents (and that’s how it works de facto, if not de jure) then maybe we could get a president elected who wasn’t part of the two-party establishment. I’ll be honest though. I don’t see how we can finagle this. You can’t keep candidates and parties from campaigning for president and you can’t keep electors from pledging to certain candidates. Still though, if we could find a way it might work.
So what parties would I like to see? Personally, I’d like a true libertarian party with members who took things seriously and didn’t wear boots upside down on their heads or get naked at the podium. I’m sure a lot of Democrats would like to see a Social Justice party split off and leave the Dems to do what they’ve always claimed to do: Represent the common working man of the US. There would need to be a party that actually does put the US first for the MAGA types out there. I could see a party that focuses on protecting immigrants. I’d at least be tempted to vote for a party that wanted to support legislation that would be business friendly and bring a manufacturing base back to the US. The possibilities are endless if we give them a chance.
But we do need to give them that chance. Not only may the future of our Republic depend upon it, but it just makes sense. It’s time folks. Here’s hoping we get started soon, because I’m sick of people wanting to break up my country. We’re capable of better so much more than that.
We'd need to change the voting mechanics. "First past the post" (majority) systems force two parties. Proportional representation allows multiple parties. (Britain and Canada have extra parties because of ethic groups sticking together.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law