Following the 2016 election, riots and protests filled the streets of America. Citizens were dismayed at the results of the election; a racist, homophobic, possible sexual offender had won the presidency of the United States. Americans questioned how the political system had reached a low point and many pointed fingers towards the third parties. This year’s candidates had the highest dissatisfaction rating: 47% of Americans disapproved of Trump and 45% disapproved of Hillary. The two major parties—Democrats and Republicans—only hold extreme views on either side of the political spectrum. Many voters consider themselves moderates and find themselves conservative on some issues but liberal on others. Although some may argue that this system has worked well in the past 240 years, America’s political landscape has morphed and diversified itself into a multiethnic, polytheistic country; the simple fact is that the system is broken, and it must be changed to equally represent every American’s voice in the government.

However, many argue that America has had great success in the past 240 years with the current political system, and changing it will only prove to be detrimental to American values. Yes, there have been a few presidents that have had a darker reputation, but most simply fade into history or stand out as heroes of the times. This may be true, but this argument neglects the founding principle of America; the people choose their leader.

This system, as of now, results in “100 million left behind when it comes to getting up, registering and voting” (Penn). If America wants to truly be a democratic republic, it must update its system to allow a greater voice to be heard in the election process.

One of the main reasons Americans do not vote is because of the political influence the two major parties, Democrats, and Republicans, have. The political system is divisive and categorical; views that don’t fit into the two parties shouldn’t be discarded. Furthermore, the rise of both conglomerates has resulted in the election turning into a business. Now it relies more on which candidate has the greatest number of funds and endorsements from other notable political figures. Candidates don’t run based on personal principle but instead of how they may benefit from others. Furthermore, the presence of the major parties puts America into a “‘winner takes all’ voting system, [which] suppresses potential support for independent candidates and blocks their fair representation in Congress” (Anderson). The existence of major parties is detrimental to American voters, polarizing the political spectrum; in order to allow all voices to be heard, the party system must be abandoned and rely on the popular vote only.

Americans have become fed up with the lack of process the government offers. When many think of the government, they imagine a large entity constantly fixing and maintaining society; however, in reality, the government faces a myriad of obstacles when it tries to fix an issue. The largest issue is the influence lobbyists have, swaying a politician’s vote. Yet, as Alterman explains it, this can be fixed easily. He states that “the only practical avenue to empowering the public interest in these battles is to subsidize campaigns” (Alternman). Furthermore, the conflict of interests within the government also suppresses productivity. Congressmen bicker and result to childish tactics of “You support me, I’ll support you”, resulting in a web of political ties. For example, in 2013 these conflicting interests drastically affected federal employees. Federal workers “were furloughed for a combined total of 6.6 million days [and] at its peak, 850,000 workers per day were furloughed” (Kille). Instead of focusing on policies and bills that will aid the nation, politicians have now resorted to personal gains which end up harming the nation. What starts off as campaign donations, these extra payments from lobbyists, large corporations, or wealthy entrepreneurs create a sphere of influence on the Hill. Their personal agendas become most politicians’ agendas which end up becoming America’s agenda.

One of the biggest issues that led to the rise of a two-party system, however, is the lack of influence third parties have. Third party candidates face many obstacles during their campaign. As Anderson, an independent candidate, puts it, “Winner-takes-all elections in fact lock more than three in four US house races out of meaningful two-party competition, and of course fail to give a chance for third parties and independents to win fair representation”. During most elections, third party candidates are excluded from presidential debates, discredited by both Republican and Democratic candidates, and usually do not win more than 10% of the popular vote because “when people want to vote for somebody else, [they] feel compelled to choose between two people who are most likely to win” (Anderson). This occurs because of most third parties’ extreme political stance; unlike the two major parties who are slightly near the center of the political spectrum, most third parties pride themselves in being either on the extreme ends of the spectrum or not even on it. Yet, this trait is what holds back their true potential. But most likely, third parties will refuse to back down from their stubborn positioning. Instead, there are two pathways the American election system can take to avoid these current dilemmas which may also heal the tears in the political society.

The more unlikely scenario is to require candidates to have a running mate of a separate party. For example, the Republican nominee and Democrat nominee would each campaign for the Presidential spot, and after the winner is chosen, the loser would fill in the Vice President spot. Therefore, both of the major interests of America are being represented I the government and may even lead to an ease of negotiations within the Senate and the House of Representatives. This is nowhere near perfect, however, because it could also lead to higher tensions between the two parties and possible backstabbing within the executive branch.

Therefore, the most optimal solution must be to rid the two-party system from American politics. Instead, candidates running in the election should simply state their policies and what they plan to do in office and let the American people decide. It may not be a significant improvement from conditions now, but it could help ease political tensions. Removing names will remove sides, which will be the first step to healing this divided nation.

"Government's first duty is to protect the people. Not to run their lives" - Ronald Reagan