Almost everywhere I go I am faced with vast array of options: I can choose between 180 channels on my television, 170 stations on my satellite radio, 10,000 books at my local bookstore, and millions of blogs on the internet. But when I enter the voting booth I am presented with only two real choice: I can vote for a Democrat or I can vote for a Republican.
In an age when even ice cream comes in 31 flavors, having only two choices in electoral politics seems anachronistic. But the limitation has a ironically beneficial effect. For as divisive as politics can be, nothing else has such power to unite our pluralistic nation.
From magazines to coffee to houses of worship, our consumer-oriented culture provides us with an unlimited number of choices. Chances are that you don't watch the same TV shows, listen to the same music, or attend the same concerts as your neighbors. While the range of choices can be individually beneficial, it can be socially atomizing. In the '50s if you lived in Green Bay you rooted for the Packers-- just like everyone else in Wisconsin. Now with satellite broadcast, a Cheesehead's favorite "football" team can be Manchester United.
The expansion of choices has affected almost all major areas of life, except for one of the most significant. In electoral politics you are forced to choose between the two dominant political parties. (Technically, other parties are listed on a ballot but the choice is still effectively limited to the two parties.*) Whether you are a proto-Marxist or a Bill Clinton-style centrist, a theocratic Domnionist or a socially liberal libertarian, your choice of parties is limited to the Democrats or the Republicans. The choice may be nothing more than a vote for the lesser of two evils--Beelzebub rather than Lucifer--but making it requires you to band together with others of varying degrees of unanimity.
Admittedly, this is a distressingly thin thread for binding a nation. But just as a spider's web is composed of threads that are surprisingly elastic, the web of electoral politics is composed of ties that are thin, yet remarkably strong. Conservatives, for instance, often scoff at the deranged hatred of George W. Bush by the political Left. Yet such raw emotion and focused animosity toward the President has had an incredible ability to unite divergent factions within the Democratic Party.
This is not to say that such unity is positive or can be used to good effect. In this case, I believe it is neither. It does illustrate, though, the power that electoral politics can have in bringing together an otherwise fragmented culture. Fortunately, this effect is not merely within the political parties themselves.
Most choices tend to be made in private and affect other people, if at all, only indirectly. For example, if I choose to buy coffee at Dunkin Donuts rather than Starbucks it has only a negligible economic impact and a statistically insignificant affect on your life. Even if millions of people make such a choice it will not--unless you own stock in Starbucks--make much difference to you personally.
Political choices are different. My vote may be statistically insignificant but if millions of people make the same choice it will directly affect your life. You have a stake in my choice and therefore have more incentive to voice your opinion. This provides us a reason to engage and interact, even if we have nothing at all in common.
Consider, for instance, the people you encounter in the blogosphere. On topics such as religion or music, you are likely to engage with those who share your interest. But on matters of politics you are as equally likely, if not more so, to encounter someone who disagrees with your views.
There are two reasons that this thin thread of unity is important. First, a diverse nation needs to find common ground on which it can meet -- even if it's only ground on which to argue. Second, the clash of views often leads to spillover into other interests and topics. Liberals who come to this blog to disagree with my political views often find themselves engrossed in debates on cultural and religious issues as well. Over time I learn not only their opinions on politics but about them as individuals.
Whether we find ourselves in disagreement or in harmony, we invariably find out more about other people than we otherwise would have done. We come to debate narrow political topics and leave with our horizons broadened. It may not be much. Often more heat than light will be shed on the issues. But in a nation of choices, where we can narrowcast our way past our neighbors, its good to find something that we have in common.
*Casting a "protest" vote for third-party candidates is essentially casting a vote for the party you like the least. For example, say you prefer the Democrats to the Republicans but choose to vote for the Green Party candidate. Since the Green candidate will not win, you vote effectively reduces the vote for the Democratic candidate (your second favorite choice) by one. Had you cast the vote that way, it would have offset a vote for the Republican.
The diversity of views we see in multi-party systems such as in Great Britain is also present in our two-party system, it's just that the differences get ironed out and the coalitions formed behind the scenes. We have two parties that appear to change slowly and subtly (despite all the stormy intra-party politics that happens out of the public eye) rather than a series of ever-changing coalitions.
The real benefit to multi-party parliamentary systems: election campaigns are short and sweet.
And you're absolutely right about the real effect of protest voting.
The diversity of views we see in multi-party systems such as in Great Britain is also present in our two-party system, it's just that the differences get ironed out and the coalitions formed behind the scenes. We have two parties that appear to change slowly and subtly (despite all the stormy intra-party politics that happens out of the public eye) rather than a series of ever-changing coalitions.
The real benefit to multi-party parliamentary systems: election campaigns are short and sweet.
And you're absolutely right about the real effect of protest voting.
The two party system also serves to limit extremist views on all sides of an issue. A small group of people very passionate about a single issue can be a significant factor in a primary or the like, but at the time of the election, the candidate or party have to present a message and plan that are going to appeal to a majority of voters, not just the vocal minority.
Of course, that can be annoying when it's over my pet issues that everyone else should completely agree with me on but inexplicably doesn't, but then it's on me to persuade people to see things my way.
But we don't have a 2-party system.
Collin
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com/
But we don't have a 2-party system.
Dead-on Collin. It's a single party with two factions. While there are differences these two factions will argue about all day, they agree on the main points...for example: (1) America should be destroyed through unsound fiscal policy, (2) American sovereignty is a bad thing, (3) The Constitution is toilet paper, (4) mind-numbing public education is good for statism, and (5) the borders should not be protected.
"By their fruits you shall know them". What I listed above are the fruits of either Republican or Democrat rule. Acting like it matters whether voting for Hillary vs. voting for whatever sacrificial lamb the Republicans put up is self-delusion. The American ship is on a collision course with the rocks if we continue to let one of the factions of the ruling party steer the ship.
So, Joe, I guess what I'm saying is that you're even more right than you noted. The current political system does in fact unite us in a big way. We all vote for the continued destruction of America!!!
For some, a third party vote may be a "protest vote", but for others I'd call it a "Hail Mary vote". It may not work, but if America is to be turned around politically, it's the only thing that would work. I'm supporting Ron Paul this year. It feels like a third party vote even though he's chosen to work from within the ruling party. He's the only one, Republican or Democrat, that sounds any different from the others. He's the only one that is out there saying America should be run according to the Constitution and the only one who realizes that it's the President's job to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America (further, I think he's the only one that actually understands the Constitution). All the rest think it's the President's job to give America a bunch of empty promises about what government will do for them, and then continue on the same path we're on once they get into office.
Collin, you're right. Our form of government allows as many parties as voters, but since the president is elected by the people (through the electors), rather than being formed by, and out of, the legislature, the reality of two major, competing parties is virtually guaranteed.
Back in 1992, during the presidential campaign, I turned on CSPAN to watch some of the libertarian convention. While not a libertarian myself, I like some of what they have to say, have several friends among them, and was interested. I happened to turn on when a speaker was up arguing passionately why the party should endorse his child's right to engage in prostitution without the government intervening.
That's an extreme example, but it's the kind of thing that can happen with third parties. In a system of more than two parties, victories can be won with only a small percentage of voters. If a party doesn't have to appeal to a majority of people, they have no reason to moderate their message and views. Furthermore, in a two party system, if a party knows it has no chance of getting elected and having to actually implement their ideas, they have no reason to try to adapt their ideology to reality. A two party system, for all its flaws, forces candidates to appeal to or persuade a majority of the electorate, and upon winning, to actually implement ideas in real life situations.
Some may argue therefore that the two parties are essentially the same thing, because they both must compete for the same electorate. But the parties still reflect different views, just moderated by the participation of a large population, not all of whom care about the same issues.
If you care about some issue the major parties aren’t addressing, you can go the third party route, but practicality has to acknowledge that your candidates won't win election and your views will remain unrepresented. Or, you can get involved in the primary processes within a major party, and try over many years to persuade enough other people of your view that the party comes to adopt your position as a means of winning election. It's long and frustrating, but it works, and ensures that spur of the moment ideologies supported only by vocal minorities don’t end up running the show.
Right on target J.J. Wake up people! It is time to vote our principles.
Let's qualify some things:
It is a multi-party system, but both major parties today have been infected.
First, there's the Wilsonian outlook that makes us world police.
Second, there's the corporatism that has them sold out. (Yes, the Dems sold out long ago. Who get's the money from the welfare state? It's the suppliers of resources who get the contracts!)
Third, there's the associated money and power that are derived from #1 and #2.
Collin
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com
Darell, I have to disagree with you. The way this seems to work is that, since the primaries attract the more extreme of the party's voters, they increase the chances that an extremist rather than a moderate will wind up being the party's candidate.
Actually, it's more cynical than that. The candidates have to look extremist during the primaries in order to win the nomination. Then they have to look moderate in order to win the election. And, while they're trying to look moderate, their opponent is digging up the extreme things they said in the primaries, to try to make them look extreme to the more moderate voters in the general election.
So maybe I'm not disagreeing - just noting that the primaries promote either extremism or dishonesty, and the general election promotes either moderation or dishonesty. So it seems the only way to win both the primary and the general elections is to be dishonest in (at least) one of them. And then, who knows whether we get a moderate or an extremist?
Mike,
I get your point, and agree it can lead to dishonesty, but that's not a given. As I said, a candidate has to appeal to a majority here. That doesn't mean the passionate partisans can be ignored anymore than they should be listened to exclusively. They're a part of the voting electorate just as much as those voters who aren't that involved. The candidate needs to either appeal to or persuade a majority of the whole of them.
So yes, a candidate can mouth appealing sounding positions, get elected, and behave completely differently. But then that will be an issue when reelection comes up. The system doesn't prevent all bad things from happening, but it does allow for an easier time of correcting them. Even if the candidate doesn't run for reelection after deceiving the voters, his party will have to deal with what he’s done while associated with them. It may be the voters decide it wasn't a big deal, or it may cost them several elections.
Like I say, the system's not perfect, but no system will be. I think a lot of people have this ideal that if only a third party option existed, where the vocal minority could push forward their standard bearer, all their preferred policies could be easily implemented in short order. I'm a pretty conservative guy, and would love to see the Republicans put forward a much more conservative candidate and position, and I'll try to vote accordingly in primaries. But I wouldn't want a hardcore liberal to be able to bypass popular opinion and get the power to implement their policies. So each of us has to make our case to the public and persuade them, and if we can’t do that, then we need to reexamine our methods or our message or we don’t deserve to set policy.
well i don't know a lot about everything you guys are talking about, but i do know this. I'll never vote for a pro-choice candidate, no matter what party he comes from. this next presidential election looks like a no voter for me. is it not ironic that the Grand Old Party might be the party that elects a pro-choice adulterer to the office of the president of the united states?
Yes, the parties have united us -- under the banner of "government is the solution to everything." Helping our neighbors? Government's job. Reforming individual character? Government's job. As another commenter noted, we really have one major party with two factions and government power grows regardless. A favorite quip is we started with checks and balances, now it's all checks and no balance.
Joe - I'm most disappointed by your critique of the third party vote scenario. It reinforces what I believe has become a self-fulfilling prophecy in this country. Everyone SAYS they're fed up with 'business as usual,' and this cuts across so-called party lines. And yet, everyone gets in the voting booth, sighs, and votes for the "lesser of two evils" because they think they have no choice (despite several other names usually on the ballot). Why not seek out other options you can honestly support, regardless of whether the pundits think they're "electable?" If more did this, I think the country would break out of the rut it's in.
It's a judgement call (like most things) whether to vote for the lesser of two weevils (as Capt Jack Aubrey puts it) or the least of multiple evils (by voting for some third party) -- for let's not fool ourselves: all parties will be evil to some extent, until Jesus returns. If there's not enough difference between the 2 major parties to merit one's vote, then voting for a 3rd party whose principles are superior (e.g. Constitution party -- tho' I'm given to understand it's somewhat fallen apart lately) may be the best thing to do. One may be accused of 'making a statement instead of having an impact', as Koukl puts it, but sometimes making a statement has an impact, perhaps by helping to put a smaller party 'on the map', such that eventually it may grow. OTOH, voting a 3rd party simply because neither of the 2 major ones totally pleases you may ignore significant variances between the 2 that could eventually make a difference. E.g., it's possible (I'm not saying it's likely) that, perhaps almost by accident, in the course of picking a more conservative SCOTUS candidate, a Repub prez (it certainly won't be a Dem!) might pick someone who actually understands that the Commerce clause was not meant to be a carte blanche excuse for the Feds to rule over everything. O well, a poor old Constitutionalist can dream...