Ever since the United States held its first presidential election in 1789, American democracy has been ruled by a two-party duopoly: first the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans, then the Whigs and Democrats, and for the past century and a half, the Republicans and Democrats. This two-party hegemony subjects us to a seemingly endless election cycle and an accompanying media circus that showcases a tug-of-war between Democratic and Republican parties that are characterized by corruption, partisan bickering, and fealty to corporate interests.
But at previous points in American history, third parties have played a more influential, albeit still marginalized, role. In 1832, two presidential candidates from non-dominant parties won electoral votes. At one time before World War I, socialist parties had 600 mayors in office. Today, however, there are only two U.S. Senators (Angus King and Bernie Sanders) and no members of the House who hail from outside the two major parties.
Can only two political parties truly encompass the diverse array of backgrounds, political opinions, and belief systems of America’s citizens? If we define a healthy democracy as a politically engaged citizenry with high voter turnout, the answer appears to be a resounding no.
Faux Democracy?
In the 2012 presidential election, just under half of all eligible voters—46.4 percent—did not bother to vote. Things look even worse when you consider that an abysmal 36.4 percent of Americans voted in the 2014 midterm election, the lowest turnout in 72 years. In fact, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development ranks the U.S. 31st out of 34 developed democracies in terms of voter participation.
Why do so many Americans consistently decide voting isn’t worth their time?
When asked this question in a 2012 USA Today poll, the following percentages of non-voters agreed with these statements: politics doesn’t make much difference in my life, 37 percent; there’s no meaningful difference between the two dominant parties, 42 percent; politics is too corrupt, 54 percent; and nothing ever gets done in government, 59 percent.
The common thread? Over 100 million citizens who feel our political system is broken.
Why don’t other political parties win elections?
Over the course of this past year, the rise of the candidacies of Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and Bernie Sanders indicate that voters from both sides of the political spectrum are fed up with the status quo and crave more “anti-establishment” figures.
But each of these candidates, at least for the moment, is running within the two main parties. Why don’t they run as independents or as members of an alternative party?
The simple answer is that the U.S. political system is designed to discourage third parties from succeeding. The dominant political parties and the government have effectively colluded to write the rules in a way that allows them to stay on top.
For starters, there is a maze of burdensome regulations and procedures that make it difficult to get on the general election ballot. Then there are campaign finance “reform” laws that impose high financial costs, which effectively freeze out third-party challengers. On top of these hurdles, there is the challenge of getting media attention, as seen in the arbitrary criteria used to qualify candidates for inclusion in televised presidential debates.
Moreover, because almost all U.S. races use a winner-take-all system, whichever candidate wins a plurality of votes gets into office, even if he or she attracts only a minority of the total votes cast. The result is that third parties with rising support still get no representation until they break through on a mass basis.
Compare this to proportional representation systems, used across most of Europe: after crossing a certain minimum threshold, say 10 percent, divisions in the electorate are reflected proportionately in the elected body. So, for example, winning 10 percent of the vote gets you 10 percent of the legislative seats. This gives smaller parties a real chance to win representation, injecting new voters and issues into politics and creating more diverse coalition governments.
The lesser of two evils
Aside from the institutional impediments, alternative candidates face a powerful psychological obstacle. Many people would vote for a third-party candidate if they felt he or she had a realistic shot at winning—but they fear “wasting” their vote on a potential spoiler. By this reasoning, it’s better to vote for the “lesser of two evils” and thus prevent the candidate or party you dislike more from winning.
Adherents to this logic point to the 2000 election, where Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore lost Florida by fewer than 600 votes to George W. Bush. Exit polls showed that 45 percent of those who voted for Green Party candidate Ralph Nader said they would have voted for Gore, while only 27 percent would have voted for Bush, had the only options been the Democratic and Republican candidates. Thus, critics charge, Nader played the spoiler by stealing critical votes from the Democrats.
But the fact that 46 percent of the voting age population chose not to vote for anyone, including Gore, should be a bigger concern than the measly 2.74 percent of voters who went for Nader.
Other developed countries have impactful Green, Libertarian, Labor, and Social Democratic parties, to name just a few. It’s past time for Americans to stop voting for “evil” (whether of the “lesser” or “greater” variety) and start looking to build alternative options.
The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Avvo.
Related articles on AvvoStories:
