One aspect of Americanism that has enraged many, even if they don’t realize it, is the inefficiency and obvious “impasse” of a two-party American political system. This system is the eventual outcome of the past 200 years, but that does not mean that it is right or just for the American people. For an interesting and indeed comical debate concerning the faults of our two-party system you must watch or listen to the Intelligence2 debate “The Two-Party System is Making America Ungovernable?” (I enjoyed the un-edited audio version; available free on iTunes). Many key points are brought up. Perhaps most telling are the intentions and beliefs of our philosophical architects, the Founding Fathers.
There are a few online that have already reached the conclusion in which I have. The current system is not how it was supposed to be. The Washington’s Blog post “The Founding Fathers Tried to Warn Us About the Threat From a Two-Party System” is short and succinct in the case against our current system. Multiple other sources and opinions are also provided. John Adams, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, among others, all belayed the thoughts that a two-party system is detrimental to the very institution they founded. It is truly sad that we have let ourselves get to where we are now.
Our current voting system, the Electoral College, has clear flaws, such as the fact that a candidate can win the plurality vote, but still not gain the necessary electors for a winner-take-all election. Proportional representation, much in the same way countless republics have created upon their birth over the last couple centuries, are clearly superior to our current system, but I fear they do not contain the elements necessary for a nation, such as ours, that is built on a coalition of independent States. Decentralization of powers was the brainchild of our founders, who scorned at the thought of another tyrant monarchy. A federal government, however, is clearly needed in order to solidify and protect these combined States. Moderation between federal and state powers is key, and although a debate on the 10th Amendment is needed, it cannot be brought up here in depth. But what can be done to make federal elections fairer and more representative to the constituents that desire to be governed? The problem may be as simple as how we vote.
Nebraska and Maine have led the way with their ideas of sending their state [rightfully] owned electors to cast a vote for the candidate that won the most votes in the district of that elector; the Congressional District Method. In effect this splits up the winner-take-all format and produces a system that is more akin to a popular vote, but in a way that the States reserve their rights and power. You may be asking yourself, however, “how does this help the two-party system issues?” Some have highlighted that our first-past-the-post plurality vote, or the current way we vote, is blocking multipartism; this is known as Duverger’s Law.
The Senate and House of Representatives are essential split into two camps, each ideologically bent against the other. What if there were 3-10 parties, one of whom would better fit your ideas and your dreams of this nation? The majority of America is moderate by varying degrees, so why do we have two polarized bodies representing us? The problem is clear, and the answer might be too.
One essay, “Duopoly Must Go: An Appeal for Score Voting”, by Andrew Jennings, et al, highlights that our current voting method, simply enough, is what is causing our two-party polarization issues. What if each state could adopt a score voting technique to determine what party gains what districts in their state? Couple that with what Nebraska and Maine have done and you will see a rise of third+ parties. That’s just the Electoral College. The same thing must be done to Congressional elections. Have each seat be vote on a score vote unless a single candidate outright gains the majority (50.1%). This again will see more and more third+ parties in the Congress, which would let constituents be represented by someone that better represents their hopes and dreams. In addition, as a corollary, as the article suggests and is certainly logical, the money that has hamstringed our supposed democratic process would be severely less relevant than it is today.
The positive and negative implications of these changes are discussed in brief by Dr. G. Terry Madonna and Dr. Michael Young in their article “Fiddling with the Rules”. They also agree that different voting methods would be beneficial to multipartism, but they ascertain that changes must be sought at the federal level. I believe that States own their electors, and they can use them as such in order to create the fairest elections for their citizens. I could, however, be entertained by an Amendment to the Constitution, one that is ratified by the States and as such is endorsed by them. Standardization would require a federal level change, but nothing should be done that deemphasizes our intentionally decentralized republic. Please write you state and federal representatives and tell them you are fed up with party politics and that you want a more progressive and fair voting method that would make our Founding Fathers proud. Our nation deserves that much. It is clear that conventional Americanism has flawed us. As a new coworker recently and wisely stated, “no one [in the two-party system] is trying to solve problems; everyone is just trying to prove a point!”
Write, call, or email your representative today. (USA.gov contact link)
The Impasse of Americanism 