Almost all voters in the United States accept that we have a “two party system” that practically precludes a third party or independent Presidential candidate from succeeding. Most politicians and the mainstream media push this narrative very hard; but as an historical matter, it clearly is not true (something to which this series will return). The dominance of two major parties is not inevitable.
While there are advantages of having only two parties in a political system, the disadvantages clearly outweigh them. If you think about how a two-party only electoral system would work–the type of system elites want and most others acquiesce to–you would easily see that it cannot work (at least not when assuming any sort of realistic constraints) as a populist system. People need alternative parties to communicate to present and future political actors their desires/values, and to hold them accountable.
Here are four especially relevant points:
1. A democracy’s electoral processes should allow people to use them to influence policy. This rejects the argument some people make that candidates do not have to reflect voters’ views because they can be lobbied while in office.
2. The major parties agree on important, unpopular issues, and generally serve similar, elite interest groups.
3. The major political parties influence each other. Pundits often talk about moving to “the center,” and capturing “moderate” votes. This assumption is largely consistent with that. If the Republicans or the Democrats move to the right, it shifts the center. Then, Democrats and Republicans become more conservative.
4. Politicians look at, and use, past election results. This is obvious and openly acknowledged most of the time (for example, when redrawing districts and talking about/identifying “battleground” states). However, it is rarely mentioned when discussing the meaning of a vote. If it were, people would realize that a vote may convey more information than the mere preference of the voter between the two candidates.
If one accepts these propositions, then one should realize that a political system with only two parties will almost certainly fail as a democracy (it could achieve similar goals through elite benevolence, fear, etc.).
To illustrate that, let’s say President X of the Republican Party adopts nuclear warfare as a means of toppling dangerous regimes and punishing the populations that supposedly support them. President X is succeeded by President Y of the Democratic Party. President Y retains and expands the nuclear policy expressly on grounds of national security, even though it was largely unpopular with the Democratic “base,” but in reality because he wanted to appeal to more conservative voters. President Y is now up for re-election. Assuming his base still opposes nuclear attacks on other nations, what are they to do to stop the policy? President Y campaigns in part as a warrior/protector, relying largely on his expansion of nuclear attacks. Candidate Z of the Republican Party campaigns in part on rhetoric that the incumbent has not gone far enough to protect American interests, that he was “too soft” on “enemy” regimes, to appeal to his conservative base.
Should Democratic “base” voters reject President Y in favor of Candidate Z to hold him accountable for the expansion of nuclear warfare? This would punish the President. But if that is all it is meant to do, it would not make sense because it would lead to the election of the worse candidate, Candidate Z. Voters might also reject the incumbent to “signal” to the Democratic Party that its base will not accept such belligerence from its leader. However, because the vote only expressly selects Candidate Z, it will be hard know when analyzing the election results to what extent Candidate Z received votes for his own policies or as a punishment for a particular policy or polices of the President. Moreover, if both parties are controlled by similar interests and those interests support the policy, then the Democrats might not excise it from their platform even if they realize it cost them the election, preferring to wait out their base’s dissatisfaction regarding that particular issues: If there are only two alternatives (Democrat and Republican), voters won’t likely vote for the “worse” option indefinitely. In this way, objectionable policies become entrenched.
As a second option, should the dissatisfied Democratic base vote again for President Y despite the fact that he adopted the nuclear policy? If they do, the nuclear policy may continue, but at least they would help elect the “lesser evil,” i.e. better option. On the whole, and with only two options, it appears that re-electing the incumbent is clearly the best course of action.
But this where the other information conveyed by one’s vote becomes important. In this situation where the left candidate moves to the right to appeal to more conservative voters, if the left base imposes no cost on the rightward movement and that movement does in fact garner more votes from conservatives, then the votes cast by the base signal to future Democratic candidates that they, too, should move to the right to win votes and, more importantly, the election. In essence, the votes says, “Winning the election is more important than your abandonment of our values.” In this way, left voters who continually vote for the Democratic candidates even as they move to the right–and further away from their own political values–get just what they ask for – government against their actual interests.
In short, a two party system leaves voters with two bad options. Luckily, voters in the United States have more that two options. Hopefully, they will take advantage of them before it is too late.
Comments are closed.