Charles Durante

Do we still benefit from the two-party system? – Charles Durante

When the nascent United States carried out history’s first peaceable transfer of national governing power to the opposition, the change was made possible by a strong new political party.

Had not the Democratic-Republican Party organized to oppose, then oust John Adams’ Federalists, it is realistic to surmise that Thomas Jefferson would not have become president in 1800. Instead, the turmoil of the 1790’s would have worsened. With the legitimacy of the young government eroded, the U.S. Constitution could have shortly been relegated to a Utopian curio.

In the two centuries since that searing election, political parties have served as refuges for the opposition, talent agencies and fraternal lodges. They create structures to advance ideas, develop new leadership and turn out the vote.

Yet, the two-party system, essentially frozen into place since the Civil War, can lead to inefficiencies. Modest reforms to the election process can help the electorate to overcome these blockages and force major parties to reform or perish.

A critique of political parties must first recognize their importance. A political party provides needed organizational muscle to advance policy. It provides legitimacy and common ground for those who oppose currently elected leaders. Because its goals necessarily transcend a single issue, a party must be built on compromise, the critical sealant for success in business, marriage and lawmaking. A party provides a brand to office-seekers, a shorthand sorting hat to guide voters. Random social interactions help its activists identify potential candidates.

All institutions, though, are fallible. In nature and business, the inability to adapt leads to extinction. Not so in a duopoly. A party’s leaders can lose touch with their constituents. A fervent minority can poison the health of the party. In each case, the failing leaders or zealous minority think themselves just one recession, calamity or scandal away from restoration to power. Their lackluster nominees fail; the other party rejoices; the public suffers from constricted choices.

A voter who disagrees with the majority party, but sees the minority party behaving badly, has nowhere to go. Voters may yearn for a third option, but our zero-sum election system, crowning the candidate with the most votes, even one who doesn’t achieve a majority, means that third party efforts generally hurt most causes advanced by the third party.

Presidential campaigns provide the most dramatic examples. Ralph Nader helped elect George W. Bush. George Wallace’s 1968 campaign nearly elected liberal Hubert Humphrey. Left-leaning Henry Wallace’s 1948 campaign almost elected Republican Thomas Dewey. Gene McCarthy’s 1976 reprise nearly swung the election to Gerald Ford. As elections are now conducted, a third party can cause a conservative citizenry to elect a liberal, and 14 years ago caused a modestly liberal electorate to find itself with a deeply conservative president.

With an easily implemented change, however, a vote for a third party could become a rational act, and make third parties an effective vehicle for citizens to force the major parties to change.

This era of electronic voting machines makes possible the long-sought ideal of an instant runoff. Voters would choose candidates in order of preference. A majority would be needed to win. When the votes are tallied, if there is no majority, the lowest candidate would be eliminated, with the votes of that candidate’s supporters going to their second choices.

This system would ensure that a candidate receives support of the majority, and eliminate the threat of fluke outcomes where a marginal candidate slips into office with minority support. It would also mean third-party votes would neither be wasted nor counterproductive, and enhance third parties as constructive forces, not as spoilers.

Preferential voting would also correct a significant problem in current primaries. Three of Delaware’s most important officeholders – Insurance Commissioner, New Castle County Executive and Mayor of Wilmington – were nominated in 2012 with less than 50 percent of the vote. Was any really the preferred Democratic candidate? Could they have beaten each of their opponents, one-on-one? We’ll never know; 55 to 67 percent of primary voters voted against them, but they coasted against weak Republican nominees.

Frequently discussed but not needed is the open primary, where nonmembers can vote to select a party’s candidates. Federalists had no role in Thomas Jefferson’s nomination, and Democrats shouldn’t be picking Republican nominees. Nor should entry requirements for third parties be debased. Delaware requires a party to register one tenth of one percent of all voters for ballot access. That’s reasonable.

Preferential voting can give dissatisfied voters an alternative, motivate stagnant parties to reform and in exceptional cases, help a new party rise to prominence, as when the Republican Party rose from the wreckage of the Whig Party in 1860, to dominate the nation for the next 70 years.

Chuck Durante is a lawyer in Wilmington.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *