From First-Past-The-Post to the Two Party System by Henry Mantel

George Washington hated political parties. In his farewell address in 1796, Washington warned that powerful political parties could obstruct the execution of the law and subvert the will of the majority. George Washington was the last non-partisan president.

Two major political parties had formed almost as soon as the Revolutionary War ended. The Federalist Party, led by Alexander Hamilton, wanted a stronger federal government. The Democratic-Republican Party, formed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, pushed for greater state autonomy. Today, "big government" Democrats war against "states' rights" Republicans.

With few exceptions, two parties have always dominated American politics. Third parties have always existed, yet they have rarely succeeded in gaining any power. My favorite example is the Bull Moose Party, started by Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 just so he could run for president after he lost the Republican nomination to President Taft. Roosevelt was so popular he ended up winning 27.4% of the popular vote while Taft received only 23.2%, making this the only time a third party presidential nominee has won a greater share of the popular vote than a major party's nominee.

The two party system is the inevitable outcome of how we vote. Until recently, essentially every election in the country used a voting method called first-past-the-post (FPTP). Under FPTP, everyone gets one vote and the candidate that receives the most votes wins, even if that candidate only receives a plurality instead of a majority of the votes. The benefits of FPTP are that it is easier for voters to understand and for the ballots to be counted.

But what happens when a voter prefers a candidate that they know has no chance of winning? Voting for the preferred candidate could mean victory for a candidate that the voter thinks is the worst option. Should the voter throw their support behind their favorite candidate, even if it means increasing the chances of the worst candidate winning? Or should they vote for the candidate they are are less enthused about but actually has a shot at winning?

This is called the spoiler effect. This is why it often feels like voters are forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. Most people do not want to support a candidate that has no hope of winning if it means helping the worst option win, so they vote for the candidate with the best chance of winning instead of their favorite. After a few elections, disregarding the occasional insurrection, two dominant parties will form. Compounded over thousands of elections, the spoiler effect has cemented the two major political parties in power.

There are other options. One particular option that has been gaining momentum is called Instant-Runoff Voting (IRV) or Ranked-Choice Voting. With IRV, every voter ranks the candidates in order of preference. If their first choice receives the fewest amount of votes and no candidate receives a majority, then their vote goes to their second choice. This repeats until a candidate has received a majority.

IRV has already been implemented in cities across the United States. Maine became the first state to adopt IRV for the elections of its governor, members of congress, and the state legislature in 2016. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled San Francisco's IRV system constitutional in 2011.

While IRV is not perfect, it eliminates the spoiler effect and allows every voter to vote for their favorite candidate. IRV also ensures that every candidate that wins will at least be preferred by a majority of voters. If IRV were implemented nationwide, America might be able to move past the two party system.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

From the Post-War Boom to a New Gilded Age by Henry Mantel

After World War II, the United States experienced an economic boom. Years of rationing created an American population that was hungry for luxury goods . While the rest of the world was focusing on rebuilding, America was producing and consuming. Workers in America were in a strong bargaining position. The  GI Bill  gave returning veterans access to higher education, low-priced loans, and healthcare. Labor unions made sure that workers were receiving a fair share of the country's new wealth. In 1965, nearly a third of US workers belonged to a union . Between 1945 and 1975, American wages increased at roughly the same rate as  productivity. Even among the richest Americans, excessive wealth was considered immoral. The average CEO made  twenty  times the amount the average worker did. Mitt Romney's father  once said,  "no executive needed to make more than $225,000 (about $1.4 million in today’s dollars) ."  In 1955, Forbes wrote an article describing the "avera
Read more

From Starve the Beast to Record Debt by Henry Mantel

This past February, the national debt topped $22 trillion for the first time in history, greater than the nation's GDP. (If you want to see how that number breaks down, check out the  National Debt Clock .) This comes to about $67,000 per American citizen. The simple explanation for this is that, year after year, the federal government has run a deficit and spent more money on federal programs than it took in from taxes, borrowing money to make up the difference. This debt is a serious problem and threatens the economic future of every American. So, how did it get so massive? Back in 1978, the national debt was around $772 billion, about 34% of the nation's GDP. Conservatives at the time were concerned about getting federal spending under control. The Republican Party's economic gurus, such as Alan Greenspan and Herb Stein, were not comfortable with cutting taxes before reducing spending for fear of increasing the deficit too quickly. The problem with cutting spending w
Read more

From Columbine to Santa Fe by Henry Mantel

On the morning of April 20, 1999, two students at Columbine High School in Colorado walked into school carrying a Hi-Point 995 Carbine, a 9x19mm Intratec TEC-9 semi-automatic handgun, a Savage-Springfield 67H pump-action shotgun, and a Stevens 311D double-barreled shotgun and proceeded to murder twelve students and one teacher before turning the guns on themselves. At the time, it was the deadliest school shooting in United States history. In the immediate aftermath, there was a lot of talk about what was to blame and what the proper response was. Politicians blamed video games, Marilyn Manson, and bullying, among other things. Several parents of those killed in Columbine blamed guns. Less than two weeks after the shooting, the National Rifle Association held their yearly convention in Denver. Despite protests, the NRA did not cancel the convention. During the convention, NRA President Charlton Heston gave a  speech  in which he called Columbine an “isolated, terrible event”
Read more