The Faulty Two-Party System

The duopoly of the Democratic and Republican party in the United States is frequently regarded as being an intrinsic attribute of the Constitution. It is often cited that a two-party system is more stable, has broad support and is thus more politically moderate and prevents a possible ‘split voting’ situation. However, the dominance of the two-party system stifles political progress by limiting alternative choices, which may better reflect voters’ opinions. Although third-party candidates are often viewed as “spoilers” or a “waste of a vote,” they can truly impact the political structure and should be encouraged rather than marginalized. By analyzing the shortcomings of the two-party system, it becomes clear that the introduction of third-party candidates would encourage progress in a system which often alienates voters and only partially expresses the views of Americans.

The two-party system can be traced back to the Federalists vs. the Jeffersonian-Republicans, the former wanting a stronger central government and the latter believing in more state power. However, when faced with the idea of parties or factions, many of the founders of the Constitution believed that they were more harmful than beneficial. George Washington warned against “the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party,” as did John Adams, who believed that “a division of the republic into two great parties…is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.” In fact, the Republicans and Federalists “did not think of each other as alternating parties in a two-party system,” but rather believed that the other would eventually be phased out and a one-party system would ensue. Hence, the notion that the party-system was a vision of the founding fathers is inaccurate, and more a result of opposition than decisive consideration. Through much of the eighteenth and nineteenth century, the term ‘party’ and ‘faction’ carried a negative connotation. But over time, the negative implication of a two-party system has faded and has become a staple of American society.

Modern day politics has become centered on the two major parties- the Democrats and the Republicans. While many other parties exist, notably the Green Party and Independent Party, the Democratic and Republican parties are the only two which carry significant political clout. While it is argued that these two parties can effectively represent the views of their constituents, various surges in third-party support throughout history have suggested otherwise. Political scientist Hugh P. Williamson draws attention to some of the flaws in the classic Democratic-Republican support: “We proceed upon the obviously fallacious assumption that together these two parties express all of the political principles which any substantial group of citizens would have or care to express.” As a country which prides itself on being a cultural ‘melting-pot,’ it’s hard to believe that we can break down our political views into two definitive categories that the Democrats and Republican completely encompass. Rather, it is more probable to assume that some Americans are being left behind. Williamson further expands his claim and argues that “The practical effect of this situation is that many American citizens are partially, and many more are wholly, disenfranchised as effectively as though they were forcibly denied the right to vote at the polls on election day.” The disenfranchisement of voters results from a number of reasons and raises challenges to the validity of the two-party system.

As a result of the two-party system, voters may feel alienated in a process which ideally should elect officials that will carry out their best interests. Williamson states that our two-party system forces voters into one or the other of the two major parties and many people vote on the basis of the “lesser of two evils.” Why should voters feel like they are obligated to vote for someone they don’t even agree with? As a result of the limitations of alternative candidates, the two-party system can dissuade voters from voting at all. Many people would rather abstain from voting than cast a ballot for someone they don’t even believe in or agree with. A loss of faith in the two-party system calls attention to the need for alternative choices. In a 1995 L.A. Times poll, roughly half of the public considered the two-party system to be “unsound.” Furthermore, in an NES item asking whether parties “make the government pay attention to what the people think,” the percentage saying “not much” had grown from a mere 13% in 1964 to 30% in 1995. The growing disillusionment with the two major parties begs the call for alternative choices for voters. But the reputation of a “wasted vote” that is often attached to a vote for a third-party candidate presents a significant challenge in including more choices for voters.

The idea of the “wasted vote” is routinely attached to third-party candidates, which has proven to be misleading throughout history. Steven J. Rosenstone, Roy L. Behr and Edward H. Lazarus highlight some important contributions of third-parties:

The impact of third parties on American politics extends far beyond their capacity to attract votes. Minor parties, historically, have been a source of important policy innovations. Women’s suffrage, the graduated income tax, and the direct election of senators, to name a few, were all issues that third parties espoused first.

Although not being elected directly, third-party candidates that gain significant support from voters can carry influence in major political decisions. If we look at the 1992 election, a third-party candidate named Ross Perot managed to get 19% of the popular vote. While Perot was not elected to the presidency, his popular support caused other politicians to take notice and listen to what he had to say. Walter J. Stone and Ronald B. Rapoport provide interesting evidence of the impact of Perot’s candidacy in 1992:

Evidence of the Republican bid for the policy-based affections of the Perot constituency is found in the Contract with America offered in the fall of 1994 as a rationale for electing a Republican majority to the House of Representatives. The Contract emphasized the Perot issues if a balanced federal budget, reform, and limiting American commitment to internationalism. Just as notably, the Contract omitted references to Republican priorities such as stopping abortions and promoting free trade that united the base of the Republican Party but were strongly opposed by supporters of Ross Perot.

Third-party candidates gain popularity when voters are not satisfied with the Democratic or Republican candidates and feel as if they have neglected important issues which third-parties are willing to confront. In order to improve the inflexible two-party system, voters must let go of the notion of a “wasted vote.” As Lowi explains,

…a vote for a third-party candidate is never wasted. If the vote is for a candidate of a dissident party, it is a protest vote which can instill considerable anxiety in the leadership of the major parties… Major third parties in the past have disappeared because of their success. How can that be considered a wasted vote?

Once voters stop voting for the lesser of two evils and vote for candidates they actually believe in, progress will be made and changes will occur.

However, history, as well as current challenges, shows that the path to greater influence of third-parties is not that simple. Third parties have come and gone throughout the years and have never been able to gain a strong hold. For example, in 1912, former President Theodore Roosevelt’s Bull Moose Party attracted more than 25% of the vote, only to disappear in the next election. In 1924 Robert La Follette drew 17% of the popular vote under the Progressive banner, but did not reappear in 1928. And in 1968, George Wallace’s American Independent Party candidacy was supported by 13.5% of voters, but this was followed in 1972 by the AIP’s paltry 1.4% showing when Wallace was not the party’s nominee. Due to the short-lived nature of third-parties, funding is far less compared to Democratic and Republican funds- and in politics, money talks. Media coverage also focuses on the two major parties and often neglects third-parties agendas. “In 1980, the leading newspapers and weekly news magazines gave Reagan and Carter about ten times more coverage than all eleven third party and independent candidates combined.” Moreover, it has become virtually impossible for third-party candidates to compete in presidential and vice-presidential debates. The Commission on Presidential Debates requires any candidate who wishes to debate to have polled at least 15 % support, as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations. There are two obvious problems with these requirements- (1) it is virtually impossible for a third-party candidate to poll 15 % support when they are running against Democrats and Republicans financially supported by wealthy corporations and interest groups and (2) the polling organizations which poll “likely voters” are not targeting voters who would vote for third-party candidates, as they are usually the voters who tend to be so disenchanted that they refrain from voting all-together.

The challenges that third-parties face in the United States are ubiquitous, yet not impossible to overcome. In order for third-parties to gain more influence, a grassroots effort must begin at the local level. Voters must shed the notion of a ‘wasted vote,’ and realize that electing third-parties might be one of the best ways to affect change in politics and address issues that the two main parties have been ignoring for years. It would be idealistic to suggest that a third-party candidate will one day be commander-in-chief. But third-parties present an alternative to the rigid boundaries and issues that the Democrats and Republicans adhere to. Small changes at the local level- through local third party candidate elections- can have a ripple effect, causing the two main parties to listen to the alternative views and needs of their constituents.