top of page
The two-party system silences most American votes.
1. Most Elections Are Decided Before the Race Begins
2. Candidates are sourced from a rigid party pipeline
3. Primary voters are the only ones with a voice
4. Political campaigns are bloated and money hungry
5. Party priorities are diluted by appealing to a broad base
6. Suppressing votes creates unrest
7. Americans feel cynical about their voting power
8. Most Americans do not live in a battleground district
Most Elections Are Decided Before the Race Begins
For most voters, filling out a ballot at the general election is an uninspiring experience. The gulf between the Republican party and the Democratic party is so wide that there's little chance of ever crossing it to vote on the other side--usually, you already know the color of your next ballot before your representatives have even entered office.
This means that representatives have no reason to think about their constituents while doing their job. Instead, they are much more likely to be thinking about their party's leadership and those donating substantial funding to their re-election: people who are actually important to their political trajectory.
There are good, conscientious representatives from both parties. However, expecting most representatives to defy systemic incentives and work against their own interests is ludicrous. We need a system that rewards public servants for doing the job we want them to do: one that is directly accountable to general voters.
Candidates are necessarily career party members
Candidates are sourced from a rigid party pipeline. Parties are incentivized to run candidates that are well-connected and obedient to the party line. Such an individual is more likely to fundraise well for the party, more likely to generate partisan sound bites that drive voter engagement, and unlikely to create an image of party disunity. Homogenous party insiders that become yes men.
Primary voters are the only ones with a voice
Prior to the general election in November, each party runs a primary season. This is probably familiar to you with the presidential election, but it happens for all of our state representatives, as well. Registered members of that party get together and decide who they want to put on the ballot to represent them. This is a good system. The most committed party members get together and decide which policies and positions are priorities and find someone to represent those positions.
The problem is, in most places, there is only one party that can win. This means that the general election in November, doesn't allow voters to decide among a variety of party positions, but the party primary decides who is going to win the whole election. We need several valid parties, so that general voters have a meaningful choice to make.
Political campaigns are bloated and money hungry
Campaigns are so expensive. An average campaign for state legislature is $50k to $200k. An average campaign for federal congress is $100k to $800k. And a presidential campaign costs billions of dollars.
How could we expect our elected representatives to be fiscally responsible when they expect ludicrous amounts of money to flow into politics like this?
How can we expect outside perspectives to be heard if they lack independent wealth or the correct political connections to compete on that playing field?
Money drives the political narrative at the expense of the average voter's interest.
Party priorities are diluted by appealing to a broad base
Parties try to cast the widest net possible to appeal to as many voters as they can. This is a good system. It tends to pull parties towards positions that have popular appeal and will make as many voters as happy as possible. The problem is, when there are only two parties, they become huge, confusing and paralyzing coalitions.
Instead of promoting one or two major policies, each party comes with an overwhelming and confusing basket of opinions about every issue facing the country. When a politician is elected, we often hear that "they have a mandate from the people." A mandate to do what, exactly? Their platform encompasses every issue in the United States, so they're free to interpret which one motivated voters to elect them.
For instance, someone who voted Republican--because they support decreasing the federal deficit--might have been disappointed at an expensive expansion of the criminal incarceration system or substantial tax breaks proposed by the Trump Administration that will increase the budget deficit.
Someone who voted Democrat--because they supported free trade--might have been disappointed by the Biden administration increasing tariffs on China.
If everything is important, nothing is. Voters don't have a way to express concern for their ranked priorities in the general election. With several parties that can compete on priorities and positions, voters have the ability to voice their opinions in a much more specific way.meone
Suppressing votes creates unrest
Most voters in the United States who are members of the minority party in their area have little hope of being heard politically. Even talking to local representatives directly is usually ineffective, because representatives have to follow the party agenda, or else be frozen out of the party structure and lose the next election.
This political sidelining creates conditions that make political action outside of the system more likely: protests, boycotts, rallies, marches, even violence are all more likely when people feel like it's their only path to making political change. A better system would be transparent enough and representative enough that passionate voters have real avenues for meaningful dialogue.
Americans feel cynical about their voting power
In my conversations with voters, there are some feelings that come up again and again.
"Government is something that happens to me. My only interaction with government is having to pay my taxes."
"Why would I vote? I don't have any confidence in either party, and I already know who's going to win the election whether or not I cast a ballot."
"Do my representatives hear me? I call and talk to them, but I don't have any way of knowing how many other people are saying the same thing. They tell me I'm the only person with this concern, but what incentive do they have to be transparent about the reality?"
Government effectiveness suffers when voters disengage. Your party wants you to just trust that they're doing what's best for the country, and each party has its own propaganda arm to help cement that trust (and convince you that the other side is the embodiment of evil). The country needs voters (and several functioning parties) to keep a close watch on on their excesses so that we can root out corruption and care enough about the issues facing the country to research them, have an opinion, and share it.
Most Americans do not live in a battleground district
In presidential elections, if you don't live in a battleground or early caucus state, the candidates aren't going to campaign near you. More importantly, they have no reason to consider your priorities when they develop their platforms. Parties need policy objectives that appeal to voters in the battleground states, and then they rely on their propaganda engines to spread that priority to the rest of the country.
In state and local elections, there is no competition for most of the seats in an election cycle. The candidate running for the supermajority party has no reason to listen to the needs of his or her constituents, the party has no reason to consider the priorities of people living in that district, there is no incentive to inform voters of local issues, and voters feel that there is no reason to engage with the local political process.
If we had more granular parties, every election would be competitive, candidates would need to inform voters on relevant issues, and we would be encouraged to care about the political process. Parties hate the idea of having to work for these seats, but so does every organization with monopolistic control. It is anti-American to live in system where parties feel entitled to these political positions, and put in no effort to fill them. This is how corruption takes root and dysfunction flourishes.
bottom of page