UnderwoodTheMatrix2



Is it Time for Another Political Party?

In the U.S., we’ve historically had a political system that was composed of two main political parties. First there were the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, then there were the Whigs and the Democratic Republicans, and now there are the Democrats and the Republicans. The existence of two powerful parties has often created great change, like the addition of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution, which happened because of the conflict between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. However, in today’s world of intensive media coverage and idolization of celebrities, party candidates often avoid sensitive issues so as not to lose their popularity. It is because of this that I think we need more parties in our political system.

Now, it is true that we do have more than just two parties. We also have a socialist party, an independent party, and a green party. However, these parties can’t really accomplish anything in a system so dominated by the Democrats and Republicans. According to the Wall Street Journal, no third party candidate has won an electoral vote since 1972 (2007). And even before this, electoral votes for third party candidates were scarce. This is because of the way the electoral process in the United States is set up. “Single member districts, where only one party wins, are a strong incentive for only two broadly based electoral parties. The media barrier, ballot access laws, the Electoral College, gerrymandering, nomination by primaries, and many other factors specific to US mandate a situation where there can be only two parties which can have a realistic chance of electing national candidates” (Crumpacker 2006). The way primaries are run also makes it hard for a third party to get elected, because “modifications in the primary calendar have diluted the chances of outsider candidates … The tendency toward “frontloading” of the primary calendar, with more and more major states with large numbers of delegates voting at an earlier stage in the process, has considerably diluted the potential impact of an outsider candidate’s unexpectedly strong showing in Iowa and New Hampshire. In a frontloaded calendar, with more than 50% of the delegates being chosen in a one-month period and dozens of simultaneous campaigns in some of the country’s biggest and most expensive media markets, the advantages of nationally known candidates able to raise large sums of money have increased considerably” (Rae 2007). There are also problems with the media being biased, because “editorial decisions in our mass media, which exists for the profit of its owners, are based on what interests the public and therefore sells the products advertised, whereas the public is not interested in or aware of alternative or value parties or their programs because they are not informed of them by the media ” (Crumpacker 2006). All these things combined make it near impossible for a third party to get a president elected, and almost as hard to get third party members into Congress.

Other nations use what is called proportional representation, which may help to fix some of these problems. “ Under proportional representation (PR) systems… legislative seats are allocated according to a party's percentage of the vote nationally or regionally, meaning smaller parties can gain representation without actually defeating larger parties” (Democracy Web). This would allow third parties to gain access to Congress, which would help them to have more influence over national politics.

But will adding more parties really make a change? According to Down’s theory, “Political parties, which must attract votes in order to win office, choose a location along the left/right dimension such that they are located near the policy positions of as many voters as possible. If only two political parties exist and all voters vote and vote sincerely, these two parties will converge to the position of the median voter ” (Andrews and Money 2006). In part, this is caused by media access, because “our national and state candidates are elected on the basis of their financial backing (which provides them media access), incumbency, celebrity, perceived personal characteristics and issues unrelated to party values. They and our mass media are funded primarily by the same increasingly centralized business enterprises. They must think and talk within the ever narrowing "mainstream" to gain media attention and become serious candidates” (Crumpacker 2006). Because of this narrowing mainstream, there is also a polarization of views created, because as they grow ever closer together, the two parties must distinguish themselves from each other in order to get votes. Oftentimes, “ dislike of the opposing coalition is the glue that keeps each interest alliance together” (Rae 2007). This polarization is also caused in part by the media and money. “The impact of money and organization on presidential nominating politics thus also has the effect of driving the candidates toward the ideological center of the party rather than that of the nation. Interest groups and large donors contribute to the candidate who holds issue positions that they approve of but who they also bet can defeat the other party’s candidate in the general election. The outcome in primary politics is to drive candidates toward their party’s ideological agenda and single-issue interest group supporters. The overall effect is a polarization of party candidates that mirrors the increased partisanship in Congress” (Rae 2007). There are many problems with this type of polarization. One is the effect on the individual voter. “Some voters tend to have one issue that determines which party they will vote for. In a two-party system, opposing parties tend to take opposite sides on many issues. These "one issue voters" will automatically vote for the party that represents their view on the one issue, even though they may disagree with most of their other positions” (Test Funda 2008). It also presents a challenge for voters who vote based on multiple issues, because what if they agree with one party on certain issues and the other party on other issues? This polarization has also “contributed to stalemate and frustration in the policymaking process. Binder (2003) and Jones (2001) show that party polarization in Congress is strongly associated with legislative gridlock and policy inaction. In fact, both of these scholars find that ideological divergence between the parties has a stronger negative effect on government’s legislative productivity than does divided party control of government” (Layman, Carsey and Horowitz 2005). There is also a problem with power transferring from one party to another. “ When a new president is elected, people anticipate that he will get things done. When he fails to meet even reasonable expectations and his administration becomes plagued by scandal (as has happened all too often in recent decades), people turn with hope to the other party, which generally does not improve matters much. This is because most members of both parties have been corrupted by special interests… wealthy and vocal lobby groups have bullied our senators, representatives and president into enacting policies that benefit a few large companies at the expense of the average American citizen” (Soutar 2007). This creates a system where “ newly elected governments tend to reverse the policies of the previous government. This could lead to instability, especially in the transition phase” (Test Funda 2008). Now, you might be wondering, how could the two political parties be so polarized when they are both trying to move to the center of the mainstream to get as many votes as possible? The truth is, that both are happening at the same time, but this is because we need to “ distinguish between theory and practice. In theory, the Republican and Democratic factions are ideological opposites, with Republicans focusing on traditional values and responsibility while Democrats are grounded in progressive values and opportunity. But in practice, thanks to the endemic corruption of the system, there is little difference between parties. Republicans turn out to be not really Republican, and Democrats turn out to be not really Democrats: both sets of politicians operate together in a hazy and confused middle ground defined by special interest groups. This has been clearly demonstrated on a number of occasions, such as the overwhelming Congressional approval for war in Iraq in 2002, the Republicans’ passage of a bill that would have provided federal funds for embryonic stem-cell research involving abortions in 2006, and the refusal of Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to consider impeaching President Bush. All of these decisions were driven by mega-corporations, which stood to profit immensely from them” (Soutar 2007). In this system, when the parties are moving closer and closer together and are not sticking to their ideals they were elected upon, two choices is just not enough.

Multi-party systems, on the other hand, create a very different political arena. According to Down’s theory, “in a multi-party context … parties will “try to remain as ideologically distinct from each other as possibl e… and divergence increases as the number of parties increases” (Andrews and Money 2006). This creates parties that are very different from each other, giving the voter more of a choice. This also makes the political arena “ more responsive to a change or shift in public opinion. Two-party systems are not as flexible because they have a more or less rigid set of opinions on every issue” (Test Funda 2008). When a multi-party system is combined with a proportional representation system, this increases the amount of change in legislation. “ In particular, more proportional electoral systems give minor parties greater opportunity to introduce many issues/ideas that at a given point in time can be considered sensitive or controversial. Many of these sensitive ideas will be neglected by the major parties either because these parties find those ideas objectionable or because they find them too risky to address even if they agree with them” (Orellana 2010). This leads to the tendency for countries with proportional representation “to take earlier action on protecting the environment” (Orellana 2010). This is because of the ability of minor parties to introduce controversial issues. “By allowing dissenters to discuss costs, more proportional systems are able to impose those costs largely with the acceptance of the public. This dynamic is particularly reflected in the prices for gasoline. But the innovative nature of the policy outcomes is also reflected in the ability of proportional countries to respond earlier to dilemmas - such as global warming and environmental degradation - which all countries are seeking to address” (Orellana 2010).

It is precisely these innovative ideas that we are in need of to address environmental issues we are having. Allowing for multiple parties to have power in our government would require a reform of our process of elections, but perhaps that is not a bad thing. We have always historically had two parties, but those two parties historically had defined ideals that they tended to stick to, and the parties only lasted for a few decades before giving way to new dominant parties focused on different issues. Our two current political parties no longer do this, so it is time for them to evolve. There is too much corruption and financial influence in our current political system, so we need to change it. I suggest we look to Europe as an example, because their political systems provide various examples of organization, and have also been much more successful than our own government at addressing environmental concerns. If we use them as a starting point, we could make great changes.

Links: Democracy Web: Comparative Studies in Freedom []

The Liberator []

Inclusive Democracy []

Intellectual Conservative []

Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic []

Marginal Revolution: small steps toward a much better world []

The Political Machine []

The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty []

Politicus USA: Real Liberal Politics []

Peace and Freedom Party []

Works Cited: “A Comparison of Political Systems: Multi-party vs. Two-party.” Test Funda. Enabilon Learning Private Limited. 2008. []

Andrews, Josephine, and Jeannette Money. “The Spatial Structure of Party Competition: Two-Party versus Multi-Party Systems.” American Political Science Association. August 2006. http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/5/2/2/9/pages152290/p152290-1.php

Crumpacker, Tom. “Democracy and the multiparty political system.” The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy. Volume 2, Number 2. January 2006. http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/journal/vol2/vol2_no2_Crumpacker_PRINTABLE.htm

“Hot Topic: Can a Third-Party Candidate Win?” // Wall Street Journal // (Eastern Edition), A.9. June 23, 2007. []

Layman, Geoffrey C., Thomas M. Carsey and Juliana Menasce Horowitz. “Party Polarization in American Politics: Characteristics, Causes and Consequences.” Annual Review of Political Science. Volume 9, p 83-110. December 2005. []

“The Multiparty System: Essential Principles.” Democracy Web: Comparative Studies in Freedom. Freedom House and Albert Shanker Institute. 2008. []

Orellana, Salomon. “How Electoral Systems Can Influence Policy Innovation.” Policy Studies Journal. Volume 38, Issue 4, p 613-628. November 2010. []

Rae, Nicol. “Be Careful What You Wish For: The Rise of Responsible Parties In American National Politics.” Annual Review of Political Science. Volume 10, p 169-191. January 2007. http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.071105.100750

Soutar, Justin. “The Two Party System: A Catastrophic Failure.” Intellectual Conservative Politics and Philosophy. Wordpress. 2007. http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/08/30/the-two-party-system-a-catastrophic-failure/

Image Links:  []

 []

 []

 []

 []

 []