A problem arises in any system of government when the people feel as though they are out of options. This despair can manifest itself in a variety of ways, whether it present as a lack of accountability for public officials, as the interests of the public being overshadowed by those in positions of financial power, or by a literal lack of choices when it comes to candidates. I would argue that nowhere are these three issues more pervasive than in the United States, whose entire political system has devolved into the ultimate problem for the everyday voter—a lack of choice.
When the Founding Fathers developed our revolutionary system of government in 1787, they undoubtedly had a number of well thought out ideas in regards to a fair system of governance. By dividing governmental power over three separate branches, they intended to prevent the very tyranny they fought so very hard to rid themselves of. By interweaving a system of checks and balances among those three branches, they intended to eliminate the possibility of any one branch reigning with supreme authority. Because it so heavily relied upon conflict among governmental branches to ensure equitable governance, the American system of government from its very infancy relied upon compromise. By design, nothing would be accomplished otherwise.
In so doing, the great founders entrusted with the people the power of choice—to choose representatives that would fight for their interests and would recognize the will of the people over that of other influences. Choice and accountability are as much cornerstones of American Democracy as are the First Amendment and the Constitution. In the intervening two-hundred and twenty-nine years, however, those entrusted with preserving these basic tenants have systematically reduced them to near rubble. The latest presidential election field is just the most recent, most glaring example of this destruction of choice.
Regardless of your political leanings, a comparison of our political system with those of other countries demonstrates just how few alternatives the American people really have. How can a people with two options (Democrat or Republican) have anywhere near the same influence in government as a nation like the United Kingdom with over ten different parties holding seats in Parliament? The simple answer: such a claim would be ludicrous. The American party system is broken.
Both parties have held on to their power (yes, via gerrymandering of Congressional districts, isolated extremism demonstrated in groups like the Tea Party, etc.) predominately because they have perpetrated a narrative that there are no other options. In glancing at my mail in ballot for this presidential election, how many candidates did I see? Not one or two, not even three or four, but thirteen. Thirteen. Thirteen different tickets arguing thirteen different platforms representing thirteen different parties. But I feel safe in my bet that the average American cannot even name four presidential nominees let alone thirteen. I know I couldn’t until this afternoon. Therein lies the problem: the lack of choice; the brokenness of the system.
The two party system has its place. It certainly seems to embody the most basic ideal of the American psyche, that there is a clear conflict between two entities with one winner and one loser. But with such a limited system, this writer argues that there are approximately three hundred and thirty million losers—each and every one of the American people. History demonstrates to us that the ruling parties can change. The Federalists and Anti-Federalists morphed into the Whigs and the Democratic-Republicans, with the Whigs dissolving in favor of Jackson’s Democratic Party. Political shakeups are possible; yes, even in the United States. All it takes is for the people to reject the status quo (and yes, of course the abolishment of the Electoral College, but that is an entirely lengthy argument for another day).
The power of politics is derived from the people. The people alone have the power to change it. To borrow from V for Vendetta, “[people] shouldn't be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people.” This is what drove the American revolutionaries, and this is what should drive us in our efforts today. The will of the people should win the day; and, by my humble estimation, the people are ready for a substantial change.
