On: Our two party system -- Let’s keep it simple

by: Joshua Howell

“When the gods wish to punish us, they answer our prayers.” -- Oscar Wilde

In concluding his remarks for the evening, Gary Johnson decided to take a risk. He would, at once, wax philosophic about the nature of voting, show his penchant for humor, and hope for the best. What resulted was one of the more platitudinous yet intriguing statements of the year: “Wasting your vote is voting for somebody you don’t believe in,” he proclaimed. “That’s wasting your vote. I’m asking everybody here, I’m asking everybody watching this nationwide, to waste your vote on me.”

If the success of a third party candidate is to be determined in proportion to the number of electoral votes he receives, then only a smattering of third parties in American history have been “successful.” But such a definition is limiting, if not misleading.

Better would be a mechanism in which we consider the short and long terms effects these parties have on American jurisprudence. The most successful third parties don’t simply vanish, as if they were but a whim of the public. Instead, they are incorporated into the extant political structure.

Staples of American policy such as the abdication of the gold standard and farm subsidies didn’t originate from within our two party system, but with the short-lived Populist Party. After losing the election of 1900, the Populists were absorbed by the Democrats, who proceeded in instituting much of what the Populists desired.

Modern day liberalism, as first practiced by Woodrow Wilson, was introduced to the American public by Theodore Roosevelt and his newly formed Progressive Party. In the 1912 election, Wilson won 435 electoral votes to Roosevelt’s 88, but Wilson adopted so many of the Progressive Party’s reforms that claiming Roosevelt “lost” is over-simplistic. One can thank “Progressives” (which now denotes many Democrats) for legitimizing pushes for women’s suffrage, the direct election of Senators, the Sixteenth Amendment, the inheritance tax, limited government interference in strikes, and other important aspects of current American government.

Third parties, it seems, have been quite successful through our years. All that was required was patience, a paradoxical catalyst in the slow moving game of politics.

But suppose those who feel our two party structure suffocates democracy had their prayers answered, and tomorrow, by some strange magic, Americans were bequeathed a third option likely to receive a significant proportion of popular and electoral votes. This would, perhaps, be more trouble than it’s worth.

Unfortunately for third party activists, the structure of our government might impose a de facto two party limitation. Given the impediments to government action inherent to Washington -- a Constitution, an electoral college, supermajorities in the Senate, a presidential veto, and a Supreme Court -- there is a floor to the political power required to pass legislation. Any further subdivision of political power may remove from our parties the capacity to make any laws whatsoever, which would be disastrous.

In addition, having three parties would make it impossible for a presidential candidate to win the requisite 270 electoral votes. Constitutionally, the problem would then be solved by the House of Representatives, who are under no obligation to select the person with the plurality. (Such was the state of affairs in 1824, when neither Andrew Johnson nor John Quincy Adams received a majority of electoral votes. Johnson received approximately 38,000 more popular votes than Adams, but Adams became our sixth president.)

America could expect this political mess every four years.

But again, suppose the candidate with the plurality automatically won. With as little as 34 percent of electoral votes, Americans would be subjected to a president who could command the military, negotiate treaties, veto laws, and oversee a vast governmental apparatus allocated to him by Congress. Nor would the president be encumbered by reelection prospects, because only a plurality of supporters is required, and a plurality is easily attained.

Earlier this year, some Americans caviled over the Obama Administration’s mandate that employers provide birth control to their workers. Even if one finds the decision distasteful, our president won 68 percent of electoral votes and 53 percent of popular votes in 2008, which provides the decision a certain measure of legitimacy, if not any sense of deference. This would be untrue if President Obama had merely won 34 percent of electoral votes at the conclusion of his campaign.

True, America would no doubt survive more than two political parties; the country is home to a stubborn people who will make work what they can. Yet such ruminations illustrate a political corollary to the paradox of choice: Increasing our supposed options decreases the viability of the state. 

Vote third party if one must, but our two party system is here to stay, as it should be.