If only George Washington could see us now. A mere 211 years ago he warned where a two-party system would lead us: "The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge ... is itself a frightful despotism."
Never in American history has this trend of alternation been more evident than in the last 20 years, during which we have already seen two Bushes and one Clinton, and may very well see another Clinton soon (Jenna Bush in 2016 anyone?).
But the story really is far more grim than that. Not since President Millard Fillmore left office in 1850 have we seen a president who identified himself as neither Democrat nor Republican. In the time since then, the political, social, environmental and economic states of the nation have fluctuated greatly. The domination of the political process by the Democratic and Republican parties, however, has remained unchallenged.
One possible explanation as to why these two parties have dominated the political scene for 150 years is that, between the two, they meet every possible governing need and fully express the beliefs of all citizens in the nation.
In reality, however, it is not and cannot be the goal of any political party to cater to every single citizen. Instead these two have put forth the policies which will attract the greatest number possible in the hopes that dissenters will be too marginalized and divided to make a difference.
In this sense, the two-party system is working perfectly. Those who choose a side are those whose beliefs strongly align with one or the other, and they come out in force to vote. The others, who feel that neither side adequately gels with their opinions, feel disenfranchised and often do not bother to go out to the polls.
The evidence can be seen by looking at the percentage of eligible citizens who vote in presidential elections. In 2004, the first presidential election after the vote in Florida was so close it had to be decided by the Supreme Court, only 60.7 percent of citizens voted. This was a significant increase over the past decade in which fewer than half of citizens voted in most elections, and it should also be pointed out that the higher voter turnout in 2004 corresponded to a significantly weaker third party than in the previous three presidential elections.
Rather than attribute this fact to the success of the two-party system, I would argue that it actually emphasizes its failures. The controversy surrounding the 2000 presidential election, along with the events of President Bush's first term, polarized American society even further than it was in the past. In fact, many blamed Ralph Nader for stealing votes that would have given the election for Al Gore. What the high voter turnout in 2004 tells us then is that voters were solely concerned with whether Bush should stay or go, and that their votes, in many cases, had little to do with the policy objectives or goals put forth by either candidate.
In the long run, this attitude would be disastrous to the political system because it does not bring new ideas to the table, does not foster healthy debate and does not bring focus to the important issues facing the nation. Instead, it makes the election into a glorified approval rating or popularity contest which in no way is the best method of serving the public.
The Democratic and Republican parties have been and will continue to be a significant deterrent to the rise of a third party. They have huge financial assets at their disposal, and together they command the support of a majority of the population. The problem is that these two parties fall far short of commanding the entirety of the nation, and it is for this reason that more than two parties are essential.
If government is truly to be for the people and, more importantly, by the people it must be by all the people. That means a truly representative government inclusive to the entierty of the American public.
The best way to accomplish this is to allow the most voices possible to be heard and to select from those voices that which is the most reasonable, the most practical and the most effective. Finding the best solution from two choices is almost impossible, as neither of the two will do more than they absolutely must. Only from among many possibilities will the best choice be found.
