I spent winter break at a retirement community in Florida. It was equal parts boring and fascinating. One day, an old man approached me in the gym and struck up a conversation. After briefly exchanging pleasantries, he asked me point-blank, “So, are you a Democrat or a Republican?” I was completely taken aback. “Neither,” I said, “I don’t like to classify myself.” He looked confused and unsatisfied, as if my answer was not an option. He then proceeded to ask me my opinion on “Obamacare,” presumably in an attempt to gauge my political leanings based on whether I supported a token Democratic policy. I answered by giving a nuanced analysis of the costs and benefits of the Affordable Care Act. The old man appeared even more disappointed as he gave up and walked away. The incident struck me as a prime example of the dominance of the two-party system in American politics. He and countless other Americans are stuck in an arbitrary binary that breeds pointless conflict from an already ineffectual government.
The 113th U.S. Congress has undeniably been one of the worst and most gridlocked Congresses in history. To see glaring evidence of this, look no further than the sixteen day-long government shutdown of 2013. With only two parties in a winner-take-all system, neither party has anything to lose by utilizing tactics of sabotage that grind the United States government to a halt. The parties each decided that if they can’t win, at least their opposition shouldn’t either. So when important bills need to be passed, or when the budget needs to be set, parties fight tooth and nail to ensure their enemies lose. Instead of making reasonable compromises, our representatives fall back on party lines. The result is extreme partisan entrenchment, and nothing gets done. Deadlines lapse, the economy stagnates and good legislation is put on hold as the parties fight meaningless wars of ideology.
This Congress has enacted a mere 85 laws thus far. That’s a whole factor of ten fewer than the infamous “do nothing” Congress of 1948 which, managed a whopping 906 laws. I’m not saying that Congress should pass laws for the sake of passing laws, but there is legitimate work to be done while our government’s petty in-fighting continues ad infinitum. Congress’ extreme inability to accomplish the most basic functions of good government, like setting a budget and funding important social programs, shows us that our system is in a state of disrepair. The current lose-lose paradigm of our two-party winner-take-all system is unsustainable.
Moreover, a two-party system is a constraint on the freedom of political thought — the diversity of America cannot be sufficiently represented by only two parties. When a too many interests are forced to adhere to a two-party system, inconsistencies are bound to appear. The pro-life party is also pro-death penalty, while the party in favor of liberal social policies also supports a restrictive economic platform. Our political parties are random amalgams fraught with internal contradictions of ideology. Voters must then choose between two parties that can’t come close to accurately representing their interests. They must compromise their core beliefs simply because the choice is so limited.
The American people are stuck with two random conglomerates of ideology that refuse to compromise. Some may argue that the situation is unfortunate, but since our political parties arose naturally, there is nothing that can be done. Though America’s two-party system did come about organically, its status as freely-formed is not a virtue but an arbitrary hindrance to proper and just government.
Further passivity cannot be the answer — active change is needed. The biggest contributor to the existence of our harmful two-party system is the winner-take-all style of elections. If we switched to a proportional election system, representation would increase and Congress’ perpetual gridlock would be broken. Instead of having one representative per district, a proportional system would have fewer districts with more representatives per district. For instance, California has one representative for each of its 53 districts. If that were trimmed down to 10 districts, with five or six representatives per district, those seats would be allocated proportionally according to the percentage of votes won by each candidate or party. New parties and independents could more easily win one of those seats, which would more accurately represent the interests of the American people.
The problem is not that third parties don’t exist. We have a Green Party, a Libertarian Party and even a Communist Party. But to argue that they have any substantive political power would be ignorant. None of those parties can hope to win a majority of votes. As such, they are forced to exist painted as fringe organizations and radicals.
If we were to adopt a proportional election system, third parties could begin to get a much-needed foothold in American politics. This would lead to greater focus on minority rights and interests — concerns sorely missing from the status quo. Both sides of the aisle are failing in their duty to protect and promote issues such as women’s rights, gay rights, labor unions and veterans. In a winner-take-all system, minority interests fall by the wayside, while the two mainstream parties fight battles of attrition over piecemeal legislation.
Allowing for proportional representation would be instrumental in fixing two of the greatest problems with our current political system: extreme partisanship that acts as an impediment to progress and a failure to fully protect minority rights and interests. The alternative is a continuation of the bitter conflict and ineffective governance that currently defines our embattled Congress. As it is, we have only to look forward to more government shutdowns, less representation of minority interests and further inaction around our sluggish economic recovery. A two party winner-take-all system is a lose-lose scenario for everyone involved.
Sam Hillestad ’15 can be reached at samuel_hillestad@brown.edu.
ADVERTISEMENT
