By: David Molfese

America. What does that word mean to you? To some, it means freedom. To others, it may stand as a symbol of hope. To the world, it means “The Land of Opportunity”. It is a place where, if you set foot in this country, your life can be whatever you want it to be. Lately though, America feels like a place where politics drives every major issue in our country. These days a man and a woman need to be on opposing sides of every argument just to be accepted by society. The bias view of the two-party system allows for sides to be taken by gender. It suggests that Republics defend the white male demographic, and that Democrats defend women’s rights. If a woman breaks rank and votes for a republican, then she may be branded as betraying the women’s movement.  In America, the two-party system also divides race. If you are white, you’re automatically supposed to vote Republican, and if you are black, you highly encouraged to vote Democrat. There’s no middle ground anymore. To have your one view heard, you may have to sacrifice another of your views to get it.  Is this what our forefathers fought for? Is this the world they imagined for us? They fought for a land of love, prosperity, and equality for all. They found for a land where all views shall be heard equally so that even the smallest voice can be heard. Sadly, as of late, it seems to not even be a possibility anymore. As Abraham Lincoln once said, “a house divided against itself cannot stand.”, and as long as this country is divided because of our two-party system, we will fail at any attempt to maintain peace and prosperity.

The main issue in America lies within the political system that we have created. What if an American would like to have more money in their pocket, then they would choose to vote republican, easy. The Republican party’s job is to cut taxes, so they vote for them. Done deal, right? WRONG! What if that same American also likes free healthcare and free college? Well, that’s tricky because, in that instance, they would vote for the Democratic party, but as stated before, they also like low taxes, a Republican issue. Therein lies the problem. You CAN’T vote for both! But why is that?

You see, the American people have been fighting for their right to choose, since the birth of the country in 1776. Even then, we had two main parties. In 1797, the Federalists, such as James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, fought for a strong central government. The second political party in 1797, more commonly known among the American people today, was the Democratic-Republic Party. Some people involved with this party were Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, and this party supported a small republic. They were against the idea of a national bank, and viewed the constitution with a strict constructionist view. These two parties started a trend that would eventually lead to this country’s toxic political divide in the next two hundred years. You see because of the creation of these two parties, people were forced to take sides even then. Instead of voting for one man/women’s opinion and his/her good morals, people were forced to choose a candidate based on party lines. First, it was a decision between a large or a small central government, then it    evolved into issues about the national bank. It later evolved into views on slavery between the republican (founded 1854) and democratic (founded 1830s) parties. During this time, republicans were in support for anti-slave movements, while others voted democratic to protect their livelihood as slave owners. During this horrible time in our Country’s history, Abraham Lincoln said this, “a house divided against itself cannot stand“, and neither can this country. Thanks to this two-party political system that has been around for centuries, we are forced to pick sides. From the birth of our nation we were hardwired to yell at each other on opposing views, and if you chose wrong you had the potential to lose everything. You could lose your job, your so-called friends, and even your family might disown you for having different political views. It’s the sad truth. We are forced to choose sides on everything, and that’s what divides us.

But what if we didn’t have a two-party system? Would you be able to vote for one party whose beliefs include things such as free healthcare, free college, while also being against abortion? Actually, YES! With the new multiparty system, these views would be recognized by a brand-new party, and it would allow for an individual’s voice to matter more than it already is. You’d be surprised how many countries actually have a multiparty system. Some major countries on this list include, Belgium (15=# of parties), Norway (9), Hong Kong (20), Ireland (14+), Poland (13), Switzerland (10), Sweden (8), and Spain (13). These are only some of the major countries in our world today that work as good, if not better, than the United States with their multiparty systems. An author by the name of Lee Drutman, winner of the 2016 American Political Science Association’s Robert A Dahl Award, given for “scholarship of the highest quality on the subject of democracy” , discusses the benefits of why we as a country need to establish a multiparty government. He points out that we as Americans do, in theory, want a third-party system. Yet, we find our selves still divided between the good old red and blue because when Americans do go to the polls, they fear if they vote for a third party, then they are going to be wasting their vote. He makes the point, though, that we need to establish a five to six party system, at least, “to represent the true ideological diversity of the country”. He then goes on to say how a two-party system is belittled by the multiparty system for one main reason. That reason is unity. You see when a multiparty system is created it “regularizes cross-partisan compromise and coalition building.” Since multiple parties would need unity to pass bills in the house and senate, it would allow more viewpoints to be acknowledged and considered by other parties. With this logic, he theorizes that voters will be happier with this new system because it regularizes negotiations and allows for government to work towards a common goal. Drutman pretty much gives the United States a step by step plan to allow this system to work flawlessly. You see, he first establishes that we need to implement the Fair Representation Act. This Act would allow states and voters to pick out their first, second, third, fourth, and fifth favorite canadite per election in a process known as rank-choice voting. If your first canadite on your ballot didn’t win the top two majority slots then your vote would go to the next guy/girl on your list. Since he/she was your next choice, your vote isn’t wasted and your voice still matters. This proposal ultimately eliminates the fear of you throwing away your vote. With every vote now meaning more, voter turnout would also be at an all-time high. Then he suggests that we should extend the number of House of Representative seats to seven-hundred. This would allow for a broader representation of people per party. Drutman also suggests that they should “get rid of primary elections, instead letting party leaders nominate their own candidates, as parties in other democracies do.” This proposal seems to be the only logical way to implement this revolutionary system of democracy into our single-minded two-party system that we have had for centuries. Since there is nothing in the constitution that says our government can’t do this right now, it would be an easy transfer into the multiparty system in the House. You see, the senate is a different story, since it specifically states, in the Constitution, that you can only have two senators per state.  There is a loop hole though. By “eliminating primaries and using ranked-choice voting-which doesn’t require constitutional changes-”it would allow for a dissolve to the “zero-sum partisanship alongside a transformed House.” With these new changes, his plan automatically eliminates gerrymandering. This is because gerrymandering only works to establish single member districts, and predictable two-party voting systems, which would be non-existent in this new system. When it came to electing the President, however, Drutman had an interesting take. The candidates would be aiming for the majority popular vote, instead of electoral college votes, and they would have to campaign to governing supermajorities and electoral coalitions. This would allow people in all parties to see the candidates for their views and integrity. Voters would then take their choice rank voting and vote for the best canadite in their opinion. This process would also eliminate a pro or anti-president congress because of how diverse the parties will become. Drutman finishes the piece on how the two-party system has caused us to have “no middle ground”. To the point where we keep tugging on the rope of politics to the point where we forget we aren’t moving the rope at all. We are waiting for our democracy to collapse, and there needs to be a change in our system now.

However, there may be some more draw backs to the multiparty system then we have previously thought. The number one issue, stated by Brandon Gaillie, was that “it eliminates the number of extremists that can be elected.” You see with this two-party, you can’t have an extremist create a party just because they want to take control. It allows for a more balanced way of life. On top of that, it is very easy for the citizens in our country to understand the two parties’ views. With a multiparty system, there are so many views going back and forth that it may confuse the voters on who they really want to vote for. A simple way they could fix this, though, would be by having a specific government website with all the party’s views and specifics on each parties’ leaders, so that voters can always be up to date with that info. Another key thing that Gaillie points out, is that the two-party system is “restrictive enough to ensure that majority receives the exact representation they want in each district.” Which is pretty smart because a small majority could win in the multiparty system. Although, since it would use rank choice voting, you would still be able to pick your next favorite canadite if your first choice didn’t win. One of the main issues Gaillie had with the multiparty system, however, is that it “slows down the process of governing”. What he is saying is that, when there is a multiparty system there would be a need to form ruling coalitions, but with a two-party system, “this allows people to vote for specific candidates that fall outside their party spectrum for certain offices.” This means you, an American, can vote for a republican for president, but also a democrat for governor. These views would still stand in the multiparty system, but maybe not in the way they are used to. There needs to be a balance of power and relatability for the parties. People need to realize that there are issues that they can agree with on both sides of the spectrum. The multiparty system stands for a symbol of hope, that you don’t have to fight for your right to choose the issues you believe in.

Our life experiences determine what sides we take on every issue we vote for. From the families we were raised in, to the schools we went to, to the friends we made along the way, we develop an opinion and we form an educated guess on which two parties we should vote for. Even if we don’t like some of the views of a certain party, it’s still a situation of the good outweighs the bad. We need to create a multiparty system that will allow millions of Americans to vote on different issues that they believe in without being forced to only choose which beliefs they prefer more. At the end of the day, we are the generation of change. It’s up to us, if we want to live in a world of broken pieces that will never fit together, or a world where we can accept our fellow Americans for the differences between us. We are known as the melting pot of the world. A million different opinions, spices, and herbs that creates the best freedom stew you will ever have. We need to learn that we need to listen, accept the other sides views, and hug it out. At the end of the day, we are all Americans, and a House unified, by something as strong as that, can stand against anything.

Work Cited

Admin. “The Democratic Party’s History of Slavery, Jim Crow, and the KKK.” Social Justice Survival Guide, Social Justice Survival Guide, 9 Jan. 2018, www.socialjusticesurvivalguide.com/2018/01/08/the-democratic-partys-history-slavery-jim-crow-kkk/.

Gaille, Brandon. “17 Advantages and Disadvantages of the Two Party System.” BrandonGaille.com, 26 Mar. 2018, brandongaille.com/17-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-the-two-party-system/.

History.com Editors. “Democratic Party.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 4 Apr. 2018, www.history.com/topics/us-politics/democratic-party.

Lee Drutman, leedrutman.org.

Little, Becky. “Why Lincoln’s ‘House Divided’ Speech Was So Important.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 15 June 2018, www.history.com/news/abraham-lincoln-house-divided-speech .

“List of Ruling Political Parties by Country.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 8 Nov. 2020, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ruling_political_parties_by_country

Munck, Micah. “American Political Parties from 1776 to Now.” Sutori, https://www.sutori.com/story/american-political-parties-from-1776-to-now–wVx3LsL1QREEGTRek2mfymUV

“Republican Party Founded.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 9 Feb. 2010, www.history.com/this-day-in-history/republican-party-founded.

Richardson, Valerie. “Democrats Label Republicans ‘Racist/Bigoted/Sexist’ as Political Divide Intensifies.” The Washington Times, The Washington Times, 13 Nov. 2018, www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/13/democrats-label-republicans-racist-bigoted-sexist-/.

“U.S. Constitution: Constitution Annotated: Congress.gov: Library of Congress.” Constitution Annotated, constitution.congress.gov/constitution/.