May 4, 2020
Three Easy Ways to Bring Multi-Party Democracy to America
In a country where you choose between dozens of different brands of toilet paper and toothpaste, how does it make any sense to only have two choices of political party?
It is a fundamentally undemocratic contradiction from a country that portrays itself as “the greatest country in the history of the world.”
Rather than pushing back against this tyrannical two-party system, despite polls consistently showing a majority of Americans are ready for more options, most people accept this as an immovable force of nature. The scale of the problem is so enormous and the difficulty of changing it so difficult, we might as well just accept it and move on. Or so the argument goes.
That defeatist attitude, especially from people who themselves are alienated by the two-party system, is exactly why we are struggling to change it.
Rather than continuously running away from the problem because it seems insurmountable, we need to collectively grow a stronger backbone. Democracy is never freely given. We must stand in solidarity with each other across the political spectrum and demand more voices be allowed at the table. Anything less is to protect a fundamentally undemocratic system of governance and to push alienated voices further away from the political process.
Here are a few small changes that could fundamentally shift how Americans think about political parties:
Ranked-Choice Voting
By far, implementing ranked-choice voting is the simplest way to normalize third-parties in the American political process. That is because this small change would get rid of the most toxic label attached to smaller political parties: spoiler.
Democrat-leaning voters who support a third-party are blamed if the Republican wins and vice versa. Even if you don’t like either option, you are always expected to choose your “lesser evil.” No exceptions.
Ranked-choice voting completely eliminates this argument. If the third-party you chose as your first choice isn’t popular, your vote goes to the next choice. Your greatest evil will never benefit from your vote.
The idea is growing rapidly. Maine became the first state to implement it after a majority of voters supported the idea in 2016. Numerous cities and local governments also use the system and even prominent Democrats and Republicans are coming around to it.
Ranked-choice voting should be a top priority for anybody interested in creating a more democratic political system in America.
Open Debates
A major reason why third-party candidates aren’t taken seriously by the public is because they aren’t given the same pedestal to stand on as the Democrat or Republican candidates.
Or should I say televised podium to stand at.
According to the Commission on Presidential Debates, a non-profit corporation, candidates must receive 15% national support in five different national polls to participate in the debates.
As the Libertarian and Green parties rightfully claim, it is difficult to reach this threshold when most Americans don’t even know who you are. It is a chicken and egg type of scenario: are they missing the debates because they are unpopular or are they unpopular because they are missing the debates and thus, viewed as less viable?
The pushback to this is often some version of, “But if we open the debates to these parties then we have to open it to every obscure party ever!” There’s an easy solution to this concern: only open the debates to parties on enough ballots to win the electoral college. So far there are only four parties who meet this criteria: Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and Greens.
By giving electorally viable third-parties the chance to duel it out with Democrats and Republicans on-stage, we will finally get the chance to see just how serious they really are. If they’re as bad as portrayed by the two major parties, why not give them the chance to fall flat on their faces?
Fairer Media Coverage
Another chicken and egg dilemma can be found in the way the media covers third-parties. Heck, even just referring to them as “third-parties” implies their lack of viability.
Most of the media approaches election coverage assuming that because third-parties historically have little impact, we should continue treating them as an afterthought. As a result, we see wall-to-wall coverage about the Democrats and Republicans, yet almost nothing about Greens and Libertarians.
Polls ask dozens of questions about the favorability/unfavorability of prominent major-party candidates, how well-trusted they are on the economy/healthcare/foreign policy/etc., yet these same polls barely include one question about these third-parties, despite the fact they’ll be on most ballots. For example, polls like this one don’t even name these parties by name or candidate, instead opting to lump them all together as “other.” Many polls only include a head-to-head match-up between the Democrat and Republican, which is not only misleading but inaccurate to what the final results will be. The electoral impact of this kind of minimization should not be underestimated.
Only about half of the country consistently votes in elections. Many of those who don’t vote say they don’t feel represented by the options presented to them. Rather than shaming these voters, we need to do what we can to welcome them into the political process.
As insurmountable as the two-party system seems, we don’t have to lie down and accept it forever. We have the agency to change it. By raising awareness about these problems and pressuring our politicians and media to confront them, we can revolutionize our elections.
Our country is too diverse to be encapsulated by two political parties. To create a truly democratic society, we need to bring more voices into the conversation.
