Third Way: A Path Towards A Multiparty System
bombuscreative
The 2024 election is a dreaded rematch between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. Neither candidate is well favored within his party, yet a majority of voters feel they have no choice but to vote for one of the two. This is a typical example of how the two-party system in America fails to capture voters’ preferences. This two-party system hurts democratic participation, increases polarization, and alienates voters. Looking at Great Britain as an example of a successful multiparty system, one can see how they capture various interests within their parties. By getting rid of single member districts and winner take all systems, it is possible to decrease the power of the two-party system and create a fairer system of representation.
Background
Why has the two-party system model prevailed in the United States since there are no limit on parties? The winner take-all system and single member districts are a big reason the two-party system thrives. While the winner take-all is applied to all elections, it has huge ramifications for presidential elections. If a state has 13 votes and a Democrat wins a narrow margin of 51%, he or she receives all 13 votes. This of course fails to capture the 49% of voters who voted differently. It also makes it incredibly difficult for a third party to gain traction since they lack the resources of the two big parties. Additionally, in single member districts, winner take-all systems ensure that only one of the two parties is represented. Voters are strategic when they are faced with a selection of multiple candidates. They know the one with the most votes wins, so they worry their favorite candidate, or a smaller party will only be a spoiler and lead to the election of their least favorite candidate. Therefore, the majority of voters tend to vote for one from one of the two big parties to prevent their least favorite candidate from getting elected.
Further, the primary process the United States has channels interparty conflict between the factions, like in 2016 with Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. This is supposed to ideally produce candidates that can appeal to the broadest coalition of voters. However, this “internally channeled conflict” leads to resentment rather than acceptance of the primary winner. This is partly due to closed versus open primaries. Closed primaries require party registration in order to participate, further enforcing this two party system. Independents, who would likely support a more fringe candidates within the party cannot participate. Further, the primaries are funded from the parties, which prevents a third party candidate from having a shot. These specific parts of voting: winner take all, primaries, and single member districts are not part of the constitution. Rather, they have developed over time and are the mechanism for creating these two-party systems.
The Problems With The Two Party System
The issues, of course with this two-party system are vast. Voters do not feel that their interests are represented within these huge “catch all” parties that cannot prioritize all these different voters’ policy preferences. The lack of parties leads to a lack of diverse political candidates. This decreases political participation by voters because they become disillusioned, feeling like their vote does not matter. Many times, this is the case since being a minority voter within a winner take all state means your vote will likely not matter. This disillusionment is reflected in polls: 4/10 Americans want more political parties and 62% say Democrats and Republicans do a bad job representing their interests.
Finally, two-party systems create and worsen polarization which is dangerous for democracy. The factors that worsen polarization are binary choice, or a two-party system, and the three-decade-old trend of partisan sorting, in which the two parties reinforce urban-rural, religious-secular, and racial-ethnic cleavages rather than promote cross-cutting cleavages. People in one political party don’t just view the other party negatively, they view anyone in the other party negatively with 72% of Republicans viewing Democrats as immoral and 63% of Democrats viewing Republicans as immoral. Polls find that this sentiment of the other party’s policies being harmful to the country is a huge reason for people’s party affiliation. People are not necessarily pro their party, but anti the other one. The force that empowers polarization is tribalism: clustering ourselves into groups that compete against each other in a zero-sum game where negotiation and compromise are perceived as betrayal, whether those groups are political, racial, economic, religious, gender, or generational.
Great Britain As An Example
Given the vast issues the two-party system brings, many have wondered what an alternative system would look like. Great Britain provides an excellent example. While it is a multiparty system, there are still two dominant parties: Labour and Conservatives. However, in the last few decades, the multiparty system has grown. Support for the two main parties has plummeted with over 90% of voters voting for Labour or Conservative in 1950, but less than 2/3 voting for them in 2010. There is now growing support for other parties, such as Liberal Democrats, Nationalist Parties, and the Green Party. This reflects a growing heterogeneity in political preferences that differ by region and economic and social differences. Since they have a multiparty system, voters can demonstrate their dissatisfaction with the two big parties by supporting smaller ones. Further, it solves in party factions by allowing those factions to find a party that truly represents them. This system is far more democratic than the two-party system.
Solutions To The Problem
What solutions can the U.S. integrate to solve the two-party system? Some solutions proposed are to have multi, rather than single member districts. If three people represent a district, the votes get split, and the smaller proportion of voters still receives representation. Additionally, districts must be drawn by independent redistricting commissions to prevent gerrymandering. Further, ranked choice voting decreases the pressure to stick with your party across all eligible candidates since different rankings give different weight. In a multi-party system, parties represent smaller slices of the electorate which incentivizes cross-party cooperation to create legislative majorities, makes polarization more difficult, and forces any majority coalition to include the political center; as a result, it banishes extreme elements to the fringe. There is more stability in government and less wild swing back and forth between parties.
The two-party system does not work for the U.S. It alienates voters, worsens polarization, and hurts democracy. Despite the United States’ unique history, nothing is written in stone that requires a two-party system. Looking at Britain provides an important example of how multiparty systems can work as a pressure valve on voter frustrations and allow democratic representation. There are steps lawmakers can take to make the government more representative and include more parties. It is essential for these solutions to be integrated so voters can be excited about the political process. Nobody wants a rematch of 2020; multiparty systems would fix that.