Just two political parties have long dominated the American government.
The two party system, at least on the surface, has been dominant in
American politics since the Civil War.
It makes good sense for young people to ask, "Is this the way it has to be?
Can't we do better than this?"
The 117th Congress had just two independent members in the Senate who both caucus with the
Democrats.
The only game in town are the two major parties.
A study in 2022 found that nearly four in ten Americans wish for more political parties.
America is a diverse country of 330 million people.
The idea that Americans would neatly fit into just two political parties is absolutely bonkers.
We saw a huge uptick in support and interest in 2016 when Gary Johnson ran for
president. Over the past, I'd say a couple of years, we've seen a lot of that support translate
into grassroots support where people are not just checking a box every four years, right?
They're actually wanting to get engaged and get involved at the local level.
When we get put into two teams competing for our resources, we engage in high levels
of demonization.
When there's more sides and more possible coalitions, we can govern ourselves much more
successfully.
But that's not as easy as it sounds.
There's structural obstacles as far as building up their campaign finance apparatus, getting on
the ballot, getting included in debates.
There's a role for third parties in our system.
But generally speaking, if you have too many, you can end up with a very incoherent,
hard-to-control politics. And in that case, voters get very upset because then they feel like really
nobody is listening to them.
So should the U.S.
consider moving on from a two-party system?
And what kind of changes would it bring?
For the majority of elections, the United States relies on what's called a single-member district
plurality system, where just one winner with a majority of voters wins the election.
Experts say this winner-takes-all approach to elections is the main reason why two parties
dominate in America.
The reason that we have just two parties is not because Americans want only two parties, it's
because we have an electoral system that punishes and marginalizes third parties.
If you only allow for one winner, essentially these gravitational forces start to emerge.
And those forces dictate that because there's only one winner, a rational person is going to
pick between two choices and elites who fund those candidates are not going to spend money on a
long shot.
But more Americans are expressing frustrations with their two main parties.
In 2022, 61% of U.S.
adults found the Republican Party unfavorable, while 57% shared the same sentiment toward the
Democratic Party.
About a quarter of Americans today say they have an unfavorable view of both major parties, a
considerable jump from just 6% in 1994.
A lot of people would suggest that both parties aren't quite sure where they want to go and what
they want to do next.
Many Republicans are troubled by the course that the Republican Party has taken as Donald
Trump has come to dominate the Republican Party with his distinctive brand of populism
and election denialism.
On the other hand, many Americans are discontented with the turn to the left
of the Democratic Party, particularly on cultural issues.
Voters in both parties are also growing more hostile towards one another.
62% of Republicans and 54% of Democrats have highly negative views of the opposing party,
compared to just 21% and 17% in 1994.
In order for democracy to continue, political parties need to be able to lose elections.
But if we are in a situation in which one party believes that the other
party winning the election would be so disastrous to the country that maybe we should
intervene to prevent the other party from winning, then you don't really have a democracy
anymore.
56% of Americans today believe that the current parties do such a poor job that a third major
party is needed.
The sentiment is especially prevalent among younger adults and independents.
We have been seeing a lot more support from young adults and people who are more politically
homeless, as we call them, people who are independent.
This has not been a great period for the two-party system.
We've had real setbacks overseas.
We've had real setbacks at home.
So from that standpoint, it makes good sense for young people to ask, "Is
this the way it has to be?
Can't we do better than this?"
In response, certain minor parties have been providing an alternative to the bipartisan
dysfunction in America.
Well, if you're sick of Democrats and Republicans, there's another option coming your way.
A new third political party in America called Forward.
The co-chairs?
One Republican, one Democrat.
This is the bringing together of left, right, and middle.
It actually celebrates pluralism.
Among them, the Libertarian Party is currently the
third-largest political party in America, with more than 310 elected officials as of November
2022.
My name is Angela McArdle, and I am the national chair of the Libertarian Party.
We are really all about personal and economic freedom.
We want peaceful people to be able to do whatever they need to do to get by in life, to be happy, to
be healthy, to be prosperous, and to thrive.
We've got over 17,000 members.
Just a third of Americans today believe that the two existing parties do an adequate job of
representing the American people, compared to more than half back in 2003.
A really fundamental part of a democracy is that people feel like they have a meaningful choice,
and that's not so much the case if you feel like, in a two-party system that's really polarized,
there's only one option you would ever vote for.
I don't think that two parties that are essentially captured by what a lot of people call
the deep state or political establishment can ever represent everyone's interest, because I
think they represent their own interests.
And to a certain extent, I don't even blame them.
They're incentivized to do that, to keep their jobs, to stay in power, and to grow their
monolith.
If we had more parties, it would be less of a kind of zero-sum competition between the Republicans
and the Democrats. You have less of an incentive if, as one party or another, to kind of tear down
the other party if that didn't automatically translate to a gain for your side.
Incorporating more voices could not only help with polarization but participation as well.
Voter turnout in the U.S.
has long been below average compared to other developed countries.
A multi-party system with viable third parties would bring people back into the process, back
into the discussion, and make it a lot harder to say, "Well, government sucks, I'm not going to
participate." And now we're having a conversation between only half of the country, which is really
dangerous.
A big obstacle for minor parties is funding.
President Joe Biden's 2020 presidential campaign raised a little over $1 billion, while President
Donald Trump raised more than $700 million.
In comparison, libertarian presidential candidate Joe Jorgensen was only able to raise close to $3
million in the same year.
The two established parties have longstanding bases of not only of voters but also
of funders.
The discrepancy is really large, and I think it's because people find that there's a lot at stake.
And so people are incentivized to hold on to positions of power and to pump and dump as much
money as they possibly can into major elections.
If you don't raise enough money to get your presence well-known, to get your candidate or
candidates well-known, then you won't have the impact you want, even if in principle you have a
strong case to make and strong candidates to present.
But given the current political climate, some experts are hopeful that more minor parties could
rise to prominence.
The discontent with the two-party system is most likely to express itself when there
is discontent with the presidential nominees of the two major political parties.
I think it's a clear solution to many of the problems that we complain about in our democracy
and many of the problems that are really threatening the foundations of our democracy and
make so much sense that it's hard for me to see how it won't eventually become the new way in
which we do politics in this country.
But not everyone shares the same optimism.
The likelihood of a third party appearing for a sustained period of time is probably fairly small.
There's structural obstacles as far as building up their campaign finance apparatus, getting on the
ballot, and getting included in debates.
The two parties having become so dominant as a mechanical result of these rules, have designed a
political system that supports two parties.
So there's institutional lock-in taking place as well.
New York, for example, raised the signature gathering requirements for third parties to an
obscene, absurd amount.
You've got to collect like 45,000 signatures that all have to be perfectly verified within six
weeks. Our gubernatorial candidate, Larry Sharp, really worked so hard and
he turned in what we believe are the right amount of signatures and the state still threw it out.
The New York State Board of Elections told CNBC that Mr.
Sharpe's campaign submitted a petition that stated on its face that it did not contain the
required number of signatures.
They also added that the number of signatures required has been revisited and adjusted after
years of not being evaluated.
The two-party system has some advantages of its own.
One of the big advantages of having a two-party system is that it's almost always the case that
people are being represented in some way.
When you have two parties in our system, it is hard to move things forward.
Now, on one hand, you can say, "Well, Washington's not getting anything done" and that's
fair. On the other hand, you can say, "Well, half of Americans don't want to see this get done." So
policy cannot be rammed through.
Whereas in many other systems, particularly parliamentary systems in Europe, if three parties
get together, they can run the table and transform a country in two years.
That can be really good if they make good decisions.
That can be really bad if they upset 40% of the population.
Having just two parties to choose from could also help prevent more extreme political polarization.
The two parties have been very broad.
They've incorporated really diverse constituencies across all sorts of dimensions:
urban and rural, north and south, different kinds of religions, ethnicities, etc,.
and that that sort of dynamic can moderate parties.
We don't have an American Nazi party with seats in government.
You see that in Europe.
We don't have a far left, "animals must be protected at all costs and are important as human
beings" party here.
You would see those ideas represented meaningfully and sometimes in coalitions in European
government.
Even without winning many major elections, minor parties today still play a vital role in the
political ecosystem.
Throughout U.S. history, smaller parties have raised issues that the major parties were
ignoring. They've mobilized groups of voters who the major parties have been
ignoring. Third parties have been the catalysts of new ideas and new ways of doing
politics throughout US history.
This is one of the historic functions of third parties, enhance the incentives of one or both of
the existing major political parties to compete for the voters who have deserted
in favor of a third party.
Against growing discontent, the two parties can do just one thing to prove themselves to their
voters: good governance.
Looking at the past 20 years, although you can list progress in a number of areas, the balance
sheet I think has not been that great.
And so the two-party system is strong in the United States when American citizens believe that
the two parties either working with each other or against each other, have somehow managed to
produce good government, and good government has been undersupplied.
My main advice for people, if they're not happy with the two parties, is to find whichever one of
their local parties they feel closest to and really get involved in that party and
shape its perspective whether they want to see it be more moderate or more ideological, just more
active. You've got to start somewhere.
And that's really the place where people can have the most kind of personal influence to really do
something and to really think about representing the concerns of people like them.