Guest Post: Two-Party Paradox

by Damon Eris of Poli-Tea Party

One of the more perplexing paradoxes engendered by the politics of the two-party system is the lack of all proportion between the number of independents among the people of the United States and the number of independents among our elected representatives. A significant plurality of Americans consistently identify themselves as independents, rather than Republicans or Democrats, when queried as to their party affiliation. Nationwide, almost 40% of Americans consider themselves to be independents, according to recent polls. In some states, such as Utah, among others, Republicans and Democrats taken together do not constitute an absolute majority of the population. In government, however, almost 99% of elected officials are beholden to the Democratic and Republican Parties. If millions of voters nationwide do not identify themselves as Republicans or Democrats, or with the Republican and Democratic Parties, with their means, their ends, or both, why are we only represented by officials who do? Confronted with this question, partisans of the major parties, many of whom are themselves dissatisfied with the political status quo, are often quick to assert the brute fact of the two-party system: we are represented by Democrats and Republicans, rather than independents and third party advocates, because we have a two-party system, they say. In other words, we have a two-party system because we have a two-party system. And because we have a two-party system, the argument continues, we have to work within the Republican and Democratic Parties, or simply accept the reigning Democratic-Republican duopoly system of government, if we desire to effect political change. Perhaps one might object here that this is nothing but a straw man argument. But is this not the exact logic by which millions of Americans resign themselves to voting for the lesser of two evils, when they are not simply voting against the greater of two evils, election after election? Otherwise principled liberals, conservatives, progressives and libertarians thus find themselves compromised by one party before they even confront the other, defeated from the outset by an ideological tautology.

Ironically, among the illusions that sustain the two-party system is the illusion that we have a two-party system. The US Constitution mandates no party system whatsoever; the framers where highly suspicious of what they called the "spirit of faction." The reigning Democratic-Republican duopoly system of government is rather an extra-constitutional political convention. In many ways it is little more than a fiction. At the local, state, and federal level, polities across the country are effectively dominated by a one-party system of government in which the Republican or Democratic Party has a virtual monopoly on seats for elected office. Yet, at the same time, there is always some level of independent and third party activity bubbling underneath the surface of the political status quo. Take the Northeast, for example. With the demise of Rockefeller Republicanism, it is considered a Democratic stronghold, at least for now. But there is strong evidence of independent resistance to the reigning two-party order, as such, in every state of the region, from the local to the federal level: in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New Jersey. Nor is such movement confined to the Northeast; promising independent campaigns for office are taking shape in Arkansas and Idaho, for instance.

Recognizing that the Democratic and Republican Parties are no longer effective vehicles for political representation, but have rather become obstacles to effective political representation, many people say they would consider voting for a "viable" third party or independent candidate for office.Though it may not be entirely correct to say that there is an independent movement taking shape in the United States, citizens from across the ideological spectrum are declaring their independence from the two-party system. But this is only the first step. If we only consider Republicans and Democrats to be viable candidates for office, then there will be no viable independent or third party candidates for office. The true measure of an independent is not whether he or she sometimes votes for Republicans and sometimes votes for Democrats, as partisans of the duopoly parties and their enablers in the media would have us believe, but rather, whether they vote for independent and third party candidates for office. The people can impose term limits on Democrats and Republicans any time we like: we must simply cease voting for them against our better judgment.