America: The Two-Party System Does Not Work
76
Undemocratic and Ultimately Counterproductive
The de facto two-party system in the United States leads to a debasement of the electoral system. Allowing the presidential race to be a choice between two men (yes, women have been excluded yet again) does not mean voters can concentrate on learning profound information on how each candidate will handle the issues, it means that the race becomes more superficial, not less so.
Who has the nicest wife. Who has the best-behaved children. Who is going to get a puppy. Who has a son in the military. These are not the criteria for choosing a president: they're not even the criteria for choosing Miss Universe, who must undergo a talent audition as well as the swimsuit inspection.
Don't get angry and say that there are more than two political parties in the US, and that it's all Ralph Nader's fault Gore lost: that is missing the point. [Incidentally, at the time I was swearing at Nader, too.] By insisting on a two-party platform, we are creating an impossible set of expectations for the political persona we would like to see in office, and diluting the process.
The candidates are forced to appeal to as many voters as possible. That is not a good idea. Good government entails unpopular decisions as well as people-pleasing tactics. Bread and circuses is an indication that all is not well in government.
Arguments Against a Multi-Party System
Although ideally a democracy would entail many more candidates, there are some rational arguments against such a basic right to freedom of speech. If the American people are mandated, say, to create more political parties, the system will be heavily abused.
- there would be the creation of even more silly parties: England has an Official Monster Raving Loony Party; sadly, Australia's Sun Ripened Warm Tomato Party is now defunct; Sweden has the Donald Duck Party; the US already has the Guns and Dope Party-- who knows what we'd get next?
- we would get more candidates arguing about some of the issues, not all of them -- they would run on their strengths only, and we would not know about their weaknesses
- the vote would be diluted -- no one would be a winner with a margin wide enough to be significant
- people would lose interest in the race, seeing it become trivialized, and would not vote
These arguments at first sight appear reasonable. Here's why they're not:
|
You Know You're a Republican/Democrat If...
Price: $2.56
List Price: $9.95 |
|
The Speeches Collections, Vol. 2: Republicans vs. Democrats
Price: $6.55
List Price: $19.98 |
|
USAopoly Democrats vs Republicans Stratego
Price: $11.95
List Price: $29.99 |
|
A Game-Theoretic Perspective on Coalition Formation (The Lipsey Lectures)
Price: $34.96
List Price: $45.00 |
|
Coalition
Price: $2.09
List Price: $9.97 |
|
A New Day
Price: $3.49
|
Multi-Party Manners?
While it can be argued that the American people must WANT the race to boil down to two candidates, otherwise more third-, fourth-, or fifth-party candidates would be in the running, this is simply just not the case. At the moment, the candidacy of both the Democratic and Republican parties are chosen by whomever can raise enough money. Raising money to run a campaign (no matter how small each individual donation may be) amounts to buying the candidacy.
While it can also be argued that a third-party candidate is detrimental to the overall outcome of the race, as shown when Democrats felt that Nader had taken valuable votes away from Gore, this just simply is not true. As much as I would like to have seen Nader drop out of the race at the time, it was democracy in action to insist that he stay in the running.
When there are more candidates, and when their position in the front running does not depend on the campaign bankroll, the spotlight changes from the superficial to the substantial. Candidates are examined for their take on the issues. While there is a percentage of the American population that assiduously studies the candidates' position on key issues already, it is too small a percentage to really matter.
This would mean that the US would have to study (YIKES! no one said there would be a quiz!) for the test; and it is a test -- an examination of political issues such as energy, employment, health care, retirement -- just look at what happened the last time we didn't bother to study hard enough for the exam: we got George W. Bush.
It would also mean that people would have to vote. A measly 56.3% of the registered voters in the United States actually cast their ballot in 2008 (see Voter Turnout). While compulsory voting has been phased out just about anywhere it was ever enforced (Australia was one of the last to stop within the past five years), it should be considered a responsibility of each citizen to cast a ballot. We hear so much about people's rights in the US -- what about our responsibilities as citizens?
It would mean coalition governments if there was no one winner by a wide enough margin. TOUGH! This would ensure cooperation between parties. Is there anything wrong with that?
- Countries which often operate with coalition cabinets include: the Nordic countries, the Benelux countries, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Turkey, Israel, New Zealand, Pakistan India. Switzerland has been ruled by a coalition of the four strongest parties in parliament from 1959 to 2008, called the "Magic Formula." (Source)
Enough with the ad hominem attacks
The de facto bi-party system in the US results in mudslinging of the most egregious sort. Sarah Palin is a moron. John McCain is unpatriotic. Barack Obama is a Muslim terrorist. Joe Biden is an idiot.
None of those statements has any place in a presidential election.
While a certain amount of personal criticism is to be expected, a multi-party system would force us to focus on the issues. Not the puppy.
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
I welcome all your comments.
While I was reading the first half, what kept going through my mind was the fact that it *won't* change until people actually get off their couches, find their polling place and place a vote--and not just for the guy with the most campaign signs and commercials, but for who stands for their beliefs. Then I got to the bottom half and read that you were making the same point.
Don't gripe if you didn't vote. Should be an additional national motto.
I really liked reading this one, Teresa!!
The last presidential campaign involved obscene amounts of money on both sides, but I think Obama broke some kind of record. Something is wrong when candidates start running years in advance and have to raise hundreds of millions of dollars to be in the running at all. That just insures that our government will be corporately owned, and it is.
The media are corporate now too, which is why we get this endless Jerry Springer Show pretending to be news coverage. If we are all calling each other names then we aren't watching what is really going on in the world.
My partner always says, "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." I think it's a quote. I'd like to think he's wrong but I'm not sure that he is. Most people don't want to think, they just want to learn six insults and repeat as needed.
It irritates me no end when people say they don't vote "because it doesn't matter". It DOES matter, so you bet I tune out those people whining about the state of the country when they gripe about who won. So do the officials *the rest of us* voted for.
The button I used to wear during election season said "Don't vote - don't bitch". That applies to local elections as well as national. Millions of people in dictatorships would love to be able to vote, but many Americans act like it's an inconvenience rather than a privilege.
I agree with all of the points except women being excluded. Hillary ran a good compaign and she lost in the primary. It was fair and I don't see that gender cost her the race. Is it that the only fair result is for the woman to win?
As far a money goes it will be hard to change on that because the group that combines the minds and hearts of the country is the media and it is the media that sucks up all of that money during the campaign. Their profit is huge and that's why you will never see serious support from the media for limiting campaign spending.
Can I get one of those pins, Jama?
"Don't vote--don't bitch"
Great button. =)
The thing is, politics is all about money. Lobbyists. Politics is a very inelegant system for getting common useful things done...well, common useful things rarely get done.
In california, for example, there's several interesting multi million dollar commisions....like one, right now, is trying to get all state name badges put in an 18 point font.
Then there's the fact some school system paid thousands of dollars to figure out what the population was going to be like in 2020 and how they should prepare for it.
Ah, well, now ya know why Cali is out of money. ;D besides all the politicians spending the tax payer's money on lingerie, new cars, lap tops, massages, dinners...
Teresa,
When you mentioned that women were removed from the process,it is a true statement in more ways than one.In 1986,the League of Women Voters lost the sponsorship of the presidential debates.Both the D.N.C.and the R.N.C tacticians schemed to wrestle away the ability of the L.W.V. to decide who to include in these debates.This political maneuver enabled Clinton and Gore to keep Perot out of the 96' debate.We saw this used again in this last cycle as,Kucinich on the left and Paul on the right were marginalised.
The illusion of choice provided to the people by these two parties is fading as the machinations of those who line their pockets comes into focus.A.I.G. is declining the insurance claims made by the passengers onboard the flight that landed in the Hudson river.The governments donation of our money to A.I.G. under Bush $150,000,000,000.00 under Obama $30,000,000,000.00 and counting.
I could go on forever on this topic but I'll end with this(before I take to howling at the moon),1.2 billion was the amount raised/spent between the two candidates,this information is disclosed,I must say we have the best politicians money can buy,which they in turn use to sell us their empty rhetoric and mindless chatter in high definition commercial spots.I enjoy reading about others who see what is so painfully obvious.We need more lambs to rise from their slumber.
Everyone has his/her own criteria for voting, Teresa, and many of them are unfortunate to say the least. However, it's not the two-party system that's to blame for all the ills you point out -- it's the greed and selfishness. There will always be left, center and right in politics, and creating more political parties would do nothing to correct the problems you cite. Having more than the two major parties would inevitably require negotiations and coalitions. Those negotiations are effectively undertaken today within the political parties, which is far more practical. I do not agree with present efforts to reform campaign financing because I believe the money must be taken out of campaigns, not that government should give money to the candidates. I am a staunch supporter of the two-party system and have written several hubs detailing my reasons. Thank you for bringing up this important issue.
More people need to study up on their candidates.
Rather than deciding by way of glib smooth speeches.
What have THEY done up to this run for the office. I don't care about the puppy.
Children should not be involved in the process. In any way. Not in the campaigns. >all children not just the candidates kids< The lesson of the campain is for debate in civics classes not a photo op for kindergartners.
Wow, guys -- great responses. I wrote this hub because I was getting so fed up with the whole Letterman/Palin brouhaha (he's a comedian. He makes jokes. If you put your eighteen-year-old daughter in the spotlight, Letterman will make a joke about it/her/you. Get over it.). But what struck me was the utter crass despicable wankerish superficiality of it. "He/she is nice. I will vote for him/her." That has GOT to be the lamest reason for exercising one's civic responsibility ever.
Love all you comments -- lxxy, money money; Laughing, Rock the Vote!; Jama-Lady, you said it!; Grundy-Girl, I was following your responses in the forum with gleeeee; Pete, yeah -- Hillary ran a good campaign. And then she was pilloried over the "telephone call in the middle of the night" scenario. Don't tell me men (and a lot of women) would let someone with ovaries in power!; lxxy, California is on another planet?; Mindful-Man, I didn't know that about the League of Women Voters -- thanks for the info.; William, you raise a great point about bi-cameral negotiations, thank you for that; Kitchen, can I get a "hell, yeah!"? Great point, thanks to all.
So can we include a swimsuit competition in the next pres. election?
bottom line 4 sure...we get the best politicians money can buy..it seems the biggest bankroll wins....the big money generally contributes 2 both...hmm....big business invests 2 c a return...laws are enacted..contracts given..I wonder who those laws favor? I wonder who is awarded huge govt. contracts?..follow that money...
sadly, I think the main reason people don't vote in the presidential elections is because it is such a farce...with each new one it becomes more evident.
what a joke it all is...can u imagine the power brokers abdicating 2 the will of the common man?
just because we have technology and public education don't be deceived.
technology is driven by profit and weapon development...public education is state sponsored..they teach obedience...
we haven't progressed beyond the feudal system...john lennon was right when he wrote that you're still f478ing peasants as far as I can see.
why do u think the ruling elite send their children to private schools?
oh well, I've said enough for now...i've got to get my feathers back in order..
peace-another fine hub by an eloquent woman
Agreed - to everything you said. This last election was a giant embarrassment. Granted, it had to it those meaningful, historical, elements which should not go unnoticed or unappreciated. Other than that, however, it was one of the most superficial and bizarre elections the country has ever seen.
Its interesting you have other parties other than the two major ones, however may never find a significant place in political world without major funding. You hear about little third party groups, green party, libertarians etc but it seems to be more or less lip service. The two parties although could be at each others throat, they do band together in keeping the option of a third party from being a serious viable option.
I say... Lets bring back the Whig Party.
Teresa I could not agree with you less on that Letterman Issue . While I am no fan of Sarah Palin , to use any candidates children Is no less then classless and that Is the bottom line . I do not believe any children should be used at the expense of beer bar jokes , but I guess class has nothing to do with It . As far as women not being Included In the mix , not true ! Hillary got alot of mileage on her campaign , but Barack said the things that people wanted to hear ! As both parties always do !
Bottom line , If you got the cash you get the office this Is modern civics In the USA now .
Got one button just like Jama's! When I think not 40 years ago people were sent to prison for *thinking* about political feedom and now the right to vote is sometimes taken as an inconvenience, I just want to bitch slap someone.
Here in Spain there are two major parties, but both have had to run the show with minor parties' support in the last 16 years. The current Gov't took Spain out of Irak, approved same sex marriage, approved stem cell research, is reforming abortion laws, etc etc never being in absolute majority in the house, they needed to seek consensus for these potentially polemic decisions, which ensures a wide specter of citizen's "wishes" will be addressed in the process. If more than two parties are in the game, it's more of an open field that gets away from petty one-against-the-other behaviors.
PS: If a candidate such as Sarah P showed her face in Spain, she'd be laughed out of the country. Maybe not in Italy, though, and they have Berlusconi to prove it! Laugh!
In the United States, 56% go out and vote. In Iran, 85% hit the polls. Who, do you think, really wants "change?"
Fantastic observation, Tom, you beat me to it :-) I was trying to find the legislation there re voting. I'm not sure if it's a must, like it is in some countries, it doesn't seem to be, so there you go :-)
Indonesia learns democracy from the US. We enjoy democracy over the past eleven years. During that time we had a woman as president - Mrs Megawati , the daughter of the first president Sukarno. Now she run again for the next election scheduled on July 2009. And Indonesia is a muslim majority country. Those who doubt that Islam is incompatible with democracy and that woman cannot lead a muslim society must come to Indonesia.
" You hear about little third party groups, green party, libertarians etc but it seems to be more or less lip service."
Again, there's only one party--thus--only one party gets talked about. This party has two factions, so you give people a choice--and as long as they have "one" choice or the other, most folks can handle it. They feel as if they're special.
So you can be a Democrat, or a Republican, and vote one way or another. With their powers combined they are the Democratic Republic National Convention!
You don't hear of lesser parties for a simple reason: no one of these lesser parties owns NBC, ABC, CBS, Viacom, CNN, MSNBC, etc., etc.
Hell Yeah!
To Tom, Iran had a 85% turnout and as a result now they are rioting In the streets cause because whats his face pulled a Dubya In 2000 and stole the thing . But you are right Tom apathy Is so rampant In the USA and we can only blame ourselves we don,t do the research not only nationally but In local elections and these are the results we get ! But now that the American lifestyle Is under the gun , now people are starting to pay attention !
well said Ix.....it seems many are beginning to suspect this evidence...hopefully enough to isolate the problem...we'll never b able to provide a solution until we address the problem which u so aptly address...
peace
Fantastic hub!! I want to throw a British perspective into this. We enjoy a well established multi-party system here with a vast array of players (yes, including the Monster Raving Loonys!!). It generally works well in our parliamentary vote, where we elect candidates to represent our own local constituencies. This means we are (in theory) voting for the person, not the party, and having a multi-party system means a large number of people can stand as candidates and enjoy the support of an established party, without being forced to stand as independants if they do not fit the mould of any of the 3 major parties. The multi-party system is by no means flawless but on the whole it works as far as our own parliament is concerned. The same cannot be said, however, for the European Parliament, based in Brussels, to which we elect MEP's (Members of the European Parliament). This is done on the basis of proportional representation. Due to a low turnout in the recent election, our very own gang of Neo-Nazi thugs, the British National Party, managed to secure 2 seats in the Brussels Parliament with a paltry 8% of the vote in the regions concerned. We are therefore going to be paying millions in salaries and expenses to these men, one of whom is the party leader. This man appeared on TV referring to British people of colour as "guests" who needed to "do things our way" if they wished to stay! Having political parties like this around is one drawback of the multi-party system (although I suppose you could argue it is better to have them out in the open).
So. whichever system operates, there will be pros and cons, it's a question of finding the right balance. What works in other countries will not necessarily work in the US. Good luck to you all!!
p.s. whatever the facts of the matter, we Brits are still insanely jealous that our cousins across the Atlantic have a leader with some charm and personality, not the boring old store-window dummy we have to put up with!
Great comments again -- thank you all. I've been thinking this over: and lxxy's right (of course!) -- we only have one party, really. There is a spread of issues from right to left; however, the FORM of governing is the same, no matter which party is in power. Nothing major changes in terms of campaign financing reform. Let's just hope that enough changes in policy occur to make up for the damage of the last 8 years.
Interesting. I agree with most of what you say but being British means that it is none of my affair, in many ways. However the recent European elections saw a BNP representative elected in Yorkshire which is one great reason for not having too many parties.
I totally agree! American two-party system just continually divide the nation. The elections now, has become just like reality television: appropriately scripted to fit the current census view.
change of the form wont necesary change the substance
I hate to say it, but our candidates are bought and paid for before the elections even start. The money men line up and decide who's going to run. Nobody gets to the level of even being considered until they've not only paid their dues, but guarantee to the special interests that they will continue to do so. I used to think we had the best government money could buy, but now I'm not so sure. For 80 million a candidate we should be able to get better. Not more compliant, just better choices. This year they were more concerned with who would play ball then even if the chosen one was eligible to run in the first place.
I applaud you. This is wonderful and I totally agree. I dislike politics because of the hypocrisy and the mudslinging. George Washington warned against political parties because the party becomes the elected and not the individual. Everyone assumes that if you are a Democrat that you are for abortion and if you are a Republican that you are for the death penalty. We begin to stereotype and hope that the lesser of two evils are chosen :). How many times do we get to the polls and not want either candidate?
Teresa, a lot of the problems you mentioned are the fault of the media. The media whips up a frenzy over the most ridiculous points. They went balistic over the new puppies - it was pathetic. It seems like during the primaries, people actually talk about issues, then it just turns stupid. People are generally interested in points made on their favorite news sources and unfortuanatly, there is a lot of drivel out there.
Great points, Teresa.
I couldn't care less about the number, or title, of parties. I just want a candidate with integrity and a spine. I am amazed most of our elected ones can walk upright from the lack of one.
Thanks for the article.
I don't agree with everything you say but I do agree with the one most impotant thing people need to get out from in front of their T.V. and Computers and go down and vote. I don't care what a person has to say if they didn't vote. You give up the right to Bitch if you didn't vote. Keep your blog going it's your right. And tell everyone to VOTE VOTE.3rd 4th or 5th party just VOTE.
I don't see how ad hominem attacks would cease with more candidates.
lxxy says:
5 months ago
Very very very useful read.
"Who has the nicest wife. Who has the best-behaved children. Who is going to get a puppy. Who has a son in the military."
Again, as G|M and I have pointed out---there's not a two party system, it is only one.