The Two-Party Failure

In America, you're either a democrat, a republican or something that doesn't count. We call it the two-party system. While there have been a couple of bold attempts to run for major office by independent candidates - most notably, Ross Perot in 1992 - for the most part, you don't have a chance if you don't join one of the two major political parties. Sure, Ralph Nader makes the news each presidential election by running for office but since his first attempt, we all realized he doesn't have a chance.

As a result, any person who contemplates running for elected office and is concerned about winning, chooses to join one of the two major parties. It would be nice to believe that each person affiliates with the party that best matches their individual ideology. However, the savvy candidate probably picks the party in his/her geography that normally gets a majority of the votes cast in that particular area. So here we have our first quandary - as a candidate, do you select the party closest to your views or do you select the party that traditionally wins in your area?

While it may seem disingenuous to pick the party that would most help you win, it doesn't really matter from the perspective of compromising your ideals. As it turns out, you would be compromising your ideals in either case, unless your personal views perfectly match one party's platform (slim chance).

Herein lies the problem. In the two-party system, all candidates must compromise their views and adhere, in some substantial degree, to the party's platform positions - especially on the key issues. Why? Because the power structures within the party will demand your allegiance in order to get key committee assignments, key legislation introduced and passed, etc., once you're elected to office. This applies whether you are running for the legislative branch or the executive branch (thanks to checks and balances among the branches).

The result of all this is polarization. Do we really want polarized views? Wouldn't it be better to have a mosaic of individual views represented in the debate on matters of importance? There would be true debate; persuasive arguments; thoughtful decisions; real contemplation about matters of importance vs. a blind adherence to a position that the elected official knows he or she must support to guarantee re-election (would term limits help? Yes!).

So, let's change the election rules to outlaw political parties just like we outlaw monopolies that might result from corporate mergers (e.g., the Hart Scott Rodino Act). After all, if it's un-American for corporate monopolies or duopolies to exist then that should certainly apply to how we manage our competition for government leadership, shouldn't it? Imagine this - an open competition among individuals for the best collection of ideas. That sounds like a better democracy to me.

It's a favorite saying that democracy in America isn't a great system but it's better than any other option out there. I agree, but we ought to be open to making it even better; especially as its partisan flaws increasingly hamper our progress.