It might come as a surprise to most citizens of the United States of America that our founding fathers were deeply suspicious of political parties and partisan politics. In his 1796 Farewell Address George Washington warned that political parties inevitably lead to factions which always serve their own interests rather than the common good. Even Thomas Jefferson who was intimately involved in the formation of a political party wryly declared: “If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.”
Yet, many Americans think the Democratic and Republican parties are a given, original, element in our body politic. These two parties are products of our political history. They are not part of an unalterable political system. They have become an entrenched duopoly that no longer serves our democracy.
Today, neither the Democratic nor the Republican party represents the interests nor commands the allegiance of most American citizens. Both parties have been captured by money and by factions which make our Republic look and behave more like an oligarchy, a society ruled by the rich, than a democracy, a society ruled by the people.
The 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United essentially equated money with political free speech and corporate entities with moral personhood. This fatal decision opened the floodgates of money, accelerating the influence of big, and often dark money, on our politics. This deluge of money enabled the billionaires – and big tech, big pharma, big agribusiness, and the health and war industries — to capture the political parties and thereby the government. See the Brennan Center for Justice position papers for a full discussion of Citizens United and dark money.
Money has made running for office, staying in office, and running the government too costly for ordinary citizens to undertake. The American Ideal of ordinary citizens doing their civic duty by serving in government for a time has become almost impossible.
Some political philosophers argue that government in our contemporary situation is too complicated and too big to be run efficiently without the duopoly of this two-party system and the treasury of big money. They see the rise of professional politicians as a class assisted by an army of highly paid lobbyists as necessary for the proper running of government in our post-modern, high tech, digital society.
However, there are viable alternatives to the two-party system and some of our states have adopted systems we can study and implement if we have the political will. See Ballotpedia for a complete presentation of voting options being employed by various states. In this essay I compare the State of Washington with our own State of Illinois to highlight the most important principles for a nonpartisan electoral system.
In the State of Washington, for example, a person does not have to declare an affiliation in order to register to vote – either as a Democrat, or a Republican, or an Independent – as you have to do in the State of Illinois. In Washington’s primaries and general elections, a person can vote for any candidate. The only time one must declare a party is during a Presidential Primary if you want to vote in that particular primary. That declaration, however, is not connected to your voter registration. Additionally, Washington uses a nonpartisan primary, known as the “top-two primary.” All candidates, regardless of party affiliation or lack thereof, compete in the primary election. Only the top two vote-getters advance to the general election.
By contrast in the State of Illinois, the selection of judges, for example, uses the partisan election method whereby judges are placed on the ballot by the political party either directly or by a primary election. In the general election, the judges are placed on the ballot with their political affiliation indicated. In Illinois, established parties have a distinct advantage in securing ballot placement for their candidates whereas an independent candidate has a far more difficult path to follow to achieve ballot placement.
One of the conventional arguments for the traditional two-party system is that it requires the various factions to compromise and form coalitions in order to win an election and attain the goal of controlling government. In our contemporary political environment, compromise is a dirty ten letter word which extremists in both political parties consider anathema.
The nonpartisan election method encourages and enables individual candidates and factions to form effective coalitions in order to win the general elections – thus requiring some forms of compromise prior to taking office.
Of course, the nonpartisan method doesn’t guarantee good elections and good government, only good citizens working together can achieve that ideal state.
Nonetheless, election financing reform, limiting the number of weeks permitted for campaigning, and nonpartisan elections can assist us in protecting the democratic values that are essential for the health of our civil society.
The duopoly failed to offer us the best candidates, failed to represent our best interests, and failed to find creative common ground for governance.
Time to reform the system.
_________________
Published by WINDY CITY TIMES MEDIA GROUP 01 December 2024
https://windycitytimes.com/2024/12/01/opinion-time-to-end-the-two-party-duopoly-it-no-longer-serves-our-democracy/
2024 © [email protected]
NICHOLAS A. PATRICCA is professor emeritus at Loyola University Chicago; member, PEN International, San Miguel Center; member, TOSOS theatre ensemble NYC; president of the Chicago Network for Justice and Peace.