The New York Times “Room for Debate” blog is currently featuring a series of differing perspectives on third-parties and the two-party system entitled “The Power of Third-Party Campaigns”. Some of the participants praise third-party efforts and call for a multi-party system, others defend the duopoly as desirable and deride third-parties as spoilers. See the essays in the series to date at the links below:
On the pro-third-party side from Micah L. Sifry:
Why is Donald Trump pledging his fealty to whomever the Republican Party nominates for president? And why is avowed “democratic socialist” Bernie Sanders running for the nomination of a political party, the Democratic Party, that has embraced the free enterprise system for decades?
The answer is America’s two-party duopoly, a peculiar and long-lasting arrangement that has stifled political competition from other forces for more than a century. Thanks to laws passed by Democrats and Republicans and upheld by the courts, candidates of other parties face discriminatory ballot access and campaign financing hurdles, gerrymandering, exclusion from debates and media blackouts. It’s no wonder then that even maverick politicians like Trump and Sanders opt to run as Republicans or Democrats, even when much of what they believe is outside of those parties’ mainstreams.
And a pro-duopoly argument from Mo Elleithee:
We’ve tried the whole third party approach. But throughout history, third parties have accomplished one of two things – either splitting the vote and weakening one party while strengthening the other; or further polarizing us by giving a structured voice to an extreme element of society. What they haven’t done is give voice to a large movement of Americans, or force the two major parties to be better. And at the end of the day, they almost always fade away, remain obscure, or get absorbed by one of the two major parties anyway.
Let’s face it – third parties just aren’t part of our political DNA.
Another good point there.
The Constitution Party of Idaho maintains that the Tree of Liberty is not a bonsai tree in a box.
That bonsai is merely a curio; a conversation piece. Forests of former American Liberty have thus been reduced, sold for souvenirs as nostalgic reminders of former freedom, which occasionally gets carted out for parades.
Every four years, that bonsai in the box gets taken down from the shelf. It gets a parsimonious dribble from the duopoly, an act of “kindness” that is certainly well-advertised. But it then goes right back to the shelf…to “keep its place”.
Timber is not found in such a “tree”. And never will be.
We submit that Liberty must be free grown in the soil of God-given unalienable rights. If our progeny have any hope whatsoever of building a free future, the American People must replant Liberty. And this time…nurture it, husband it, cherish it, protect it as the precious resource that it truly is.
Merely one man’s perspective from outside the box.
Good point, Floyd Whitley.
Change in this political system has always been ushered in by third parties.
The reason is simple. The entrenched duopoly has no vested interest to change the status quo.
Because of that, America’s body politic remains upon a see-saw, oscillating under the weight of whatever duopoly gang recently passed through the neighborhood in a drive by shooting under a hail of dark money 501 (c) 4 rounds.
The only way to cleanup the ‘hood, is for the residents to do it themselves. Call it vigilante if you must; call it an anti-corruption league, or splitting the vote, or spoilers, or whatever…
But again, the duopoly is not going to stop their gangsta activity, not willingly…not until it is forced to do so by active third party organized citizens.
As I see it, third parties win, even if they lose. They win whenever they, by standing up for themselves, actually force the system to reform.
This Country didn’t start out as a two party system. We had multiple parties.
Paulie: Nobody says such outcomes NEVER occur. That is not the issue.
http://ballot-access.org/2015/09/09/canada-poll-again-shows-virtual-three-way-tie/
Jed: One more thing. You said [some] “Other countries use “first past the post” and have at least some form of multiparty democracy.” Consider India, which is a highly tribal land, and tribes generally have their own homelands. In that case, if the voting boundaries correspond to the boundaries of the homelands, even minor parties (from the standpoint of percentage of the nation as a whole) can get elected and represent those areas. BUT THAT IS NOT THE WAY AMERICA IS SET UP!!! American’s population is relatively evenly distributed. Third-party candidates will rarely win.
Since you have cited “Other countries”, please explain how they have “some form of multiparty democracy” despite the “first past the post” system. If you can’t explain it, it is irrelevant to America’s situation..
Canada used to be effectively a two party system, now it’s not. Same with UK. Some US states have had more than two strong parties at times.
Jed: Yes, other nations probably use rules specifically tailored to avoid the two-party slant. I’ll give you an example of what would shut it down: Given political power based on the percentage of vote. For example, if there was one candidate that got 47 percent of the vote, another candidate that got 44 %, and yet another (say, libertarian) who got 9%. Give these seemingly non-winning candidates input into any vote. Set them up with an office, outside the capitol, with the typical Internet connections that can be easily implemented today, and let them apply their votes in Congress as a percentage of their elected-vote margin. If everybody agreed on something, it would get the usual 100%. If the two minority candidates disagreed, their votes would amount to 44%+9%, or 54%. So, the overall vote in Congress would be: 47% – 54%, or 7% against.
Other countries use “first past the post” and have at least some form of multiparty democracy. The tyranny of the duopoly is an almost uniquely American institution.
Clearly, Mo Elleithee is a brainless fool. If he were otherwise, he would understand that the two-party system is a product of the voting system (first past the post) chosen by the Founding fathers, whose consequences unwittingly made it very difficult for three parties to co-exist. It was clearly not an intentional choice! Those people didn’t even anticipate the existence of a “political party”. He just wants to defend a bad system, one that does not improve the existing two-party system. (While at the same time he blames it! Go figure!)