Are you satisfied with our two party system?
Are you satisfied with our two party system?
Wherever you fall on the political spectrum, you can probably agree that there has been a lot not to like about the current Presidential election. For me, it was the leaked emails from the upper echelons of the Democratic party. For many, it's the way Trump and his supporters have taken over the Republican party.
Because the system all but guarantees that the nominee of one of the two parties will become President, a significant fraction of the democratic power in this country is wielded by the primary process. This process is not a government function but is operated by each party according to its arcane rules.
Even when the nomination process is democratic, the two party system is still rigged to consistently present two candidates to the voters who are seldom all that different. Nominees cannot hold minority positions because they need numbers to win elections.
Did you vote for Obama thinking he would change things and then support Sanders thinking somehow he would be able to make changes? Do you wonder why Obama is expanding the use of drone strikes despite impeccable Liberal credentials?
The problem is not the individuals, it's the system that advantages the corrupt and grinds down the honest.
Can we use the two party system against itself?
The nature of a two party system is that candidates cannot take positions that are extremely unpopular. They have to win a broad swath of people. That's why there's no serious candidate who wants to end the war on drugs or turn America into a Muslim caliphate.
Take two parties off the table
If there were widespread popular support for policy changes that weaken the two party system, at some point major candidates would have to listen. It won't be easy -- you don't get to be a major candidate in a country with a two party system unless the two party system has been good for you. And, of course, everyone in the flow of money wants to keep it flowing.
Are there ways to make the system better?
So are we stuck with a succession of nearly identical candidates who motivate people to vote with promises they can never deliver on because they're just one piece of a thoroughly corrupt system?
I don't think so.
Third parties
The biggest challenge to the two party system is third parties. The Libertarian and Green parties are seeing more interest today then they have ever seen before.
Third parties don't have to win elections to make a difference. If, say, 12% of Americans voted for the Libertarian candidate for president, New Mexico governor Gary Johnson, it would have profound effects. The margin of victory is likely to be of that order of magnitude. Politicians will get the message that they need to sway third party voters if they want to win elections.
I strongly urge everyone to investigate every third party they can. If you find a third party that aligns with your political views, vote for them. (If you're in a real battleground State and your vote might impact the election, you may not want to follow this advice and I understand.)
Instant runoff voting
One of the most common objections to voting for a third party candidate is the fear of wasting your vote. There is a simple solution to this problem -- instant runoff voting. With instant runoff voting, voters may rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate obtains a majority of first preferences, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and those who voted for that candidate have their votes replaced with their next choice.
This eliminates "spoilers". When Ralph Nader ran as a Green candidate, people who preferred him had to risk wasting their vote in order to register their preference for him. This likely reduced his polling numbers well below the number of people who actually preferred him (though it didn't change the election results). With instant runoff voting, they could have picked Nader as their first choice and use their second choice to vote for their preferred major party candidate.
Instant runoff voting both allows voters to follow their conscience and ensures that polling results reflect actual voter preferences.
Fusion
Fusion voting systems allow more than one political party to nominate the same candidate. Such systems were popular in the United States in the 1800's and permitted numerous third parties to grow and thrive. Today, only eight States allow fusion voting.
Fusion voting helps to weaken the two party stranglehold by allowing a number of parties to exist and to pick a compromise candidate. Major party candidates can appeal directly to members of third parties, asking not for their vote in the general election, but for their vote in their party's primary or their party's support.
Imagine if both the Democratic and Republican parties made their cases to the Green and the Libertarian parties. Major candidates could appeal to third parties directly and use policy concessions to become the nominee of these parties.
This is a battle we can fight State by State.
What we're up against
People are more disgusted with the American political system now than at any time since perhaps the revolution. Approval ratings for Federal elected officials is low. There is a widespread perception by people on all sides of the political spectrum that the system is corrupt, that the role of money in American politics is greater today than it has ever been, and the nominees of their party don't reflect their values.
But the major parties aren't going to care unless people force them to. After all, they're in power because of the system is the way it is. Short of another revolution, the way to change it will be to force the existing parties to change their positions to reflect their constituents disgust with the status quo.
A quick shout out to Tiffany Hayden
Tiffany Hayden is the Libertarian nominee for the US House of Representatives, 13th District of Michigan. She's a smart and honest person and a well-known influencer in the field of financial technology. She's running against John Conyers who is currently serving his 26th(!) Congressional term. If you want better government, check out her campaign.
Stay angry
We see this sausage being made every four years. And then we collectively forget about it until the next Presidential election. Please don't let the major parties get away with this again. It's not going to magically get better by itself. Join with people whose political views may not align with yours but who agree that politics is broken and who are also upset that none of the major party candidates reflect their beliefs and values.
It hasn't always been like this. It doesn't have to always be like this.
Follow @JoelKatz on Twitter. Read my blog to hear about the war on cash. These views are exclusively my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer or my brain slug.
Great post! As I learned from economics our system flourishes if there is constant competition. It is a habit for these groups to fall into a bigger and bigger group. If we do not forbid these huge sides from creating we are limiting ourselves to whatever the least of the two evils are. Thank you.
I'm definitely not satisfied with the current two party system. I would like to see more independent parties that exist outside of the 2 major parties.
I believe you feel the way most of my peers feel. I hope this kind of opinion will spark change in my generation. But just saying that shows how little I feel we can change the system over time. Thanks!
Indeed. A better political system surely is the key to a better country.
But if we don't change, then our country will be screwed. Over and over.
Hey Joel, nice post and it's an important issue that I think most Americans agree need to change but hardly ever talk about. I'm curious, what changes need to be made to implement the "instant run-off" system, would it take an amendment to the constitution or could it be done with a lesser bill from congress?
By the way, for those interested in some good explanations of the voting systems, CGP Grey has some great videos on them below. I believe the "instant run-off" system mentioned in the article is the same as the alternative vote explained in the video, but please correct me if I'm wrong:
I looked into this after the election of 2000. An amendment to the Constitution is not needed for anything but the Presidential race, and even there it's probably not needed.
For every election other than the Presidential elections, it looks like changes to State law are all that is needed. It's likely there would be challenges to such a State law in Federal court, but it's quite likely the State law would be upheld with no changes needed to Federal law.
The Presidential election is more complicated. I don't see any reason a State couldn't implement instant runoff voting for its own electors. But here, a court challenge that it gives some voters more of a voice than others would be more likely to prevail. If that succeeds, you would need a Federal law to either allow or require instant runoff voting. In either case, there would likely be more court challenges. In the former case, where the law merely allows it, the same kind of "some people's vote counts more" argument might work. In the latter case, the argument might be made that the Federal government cannot compel the States to run their own elections in specific ways.
In the case, unlikely I think, where those kinds of arguments win, then a Constitutional amendment would be needed. But even in that worse case scenario, we could still accomplish a lot by implementing instant runoff voting for races other than President.
We need a STEEMIT PARTY
Blockchain party!
Bitcoin party!