The United States has a two-party system. The two current parties are well-entrenched with massive networks of donors, bureaucrats, and workers. They are two of the largest and most established non-governmental organizations, if you will, in the world.
Absent actual reforms, the Unites States political system will continue to be run by two parties. Those two parties don’t have to continue to be the same nor do they have to look the same, however. Over the history of United States politics, there have been a large number of political parties. Some have become entrenched as one of the two major parties (most notably, the Democratic Party which, arguably, has been around since the beginning of the two-party system circa 1796) while others have languished in obscurity. Interestingly, the two parties in power have been replaced over time (again, with the possible exception of the Democratic Party); the Federalists replaced by the Whigs and the Whigs replaced by Republicans (and that’s it, those four parties are the basic players in USAmerican political history, no President has really come from any other party).
The two major parties have also undergone complete ideological swaps at times. An example of this is with regards to African-American civil rights. The Democratic Party was once known as the Party of the Fathers in the American South where it ruled with one-party dominance (as is the case with either of the two major parties in most regions of the United States) over a caste system of white supremacy. During the 1950s and 1960s, the Democratic Party moved left at the national level with regards to African-American civil rights. The racist Southern Strategy employed by the Republican Party drew disaffected whites with chants of “states rights” and promised to reduce welfare and food stamps (programs widely seen as redistributive of income from whites to blacks). Today, Southern whites vote Republican as much as they did for Democrats 100 years ago and vice versa for blacks.
Another aspect of the American party system is the existence of minor parties. From time to time, a minor party can replace one of the two major parties or can push an pet issue to the national forefront. However, a minor party will never become a third party. Single-member plurality elections for most offices in the country cultivates a two-party system. Even in moments when there are three parties competing somewhere, it will eventually stabilize to a two-party situation.
The important point of this discussion is the prospects for the left in electoral politics. One could say that there are two avenues in which the left can gain power in electoral politics: gaining power through a minor party or taking over a major party. Since I find the chances of a minor party gaining power (with the caveat that there is an off chance in the current political climate that the Republican Party may disintegrate, which would leave a vacuum open for a minor party to take its place as one of the two major parties), this leaves us with the goal of taking over one of the existing major parties. For a long, long time the left has struggled to drag the Democratic Party to the left, with successes and setbacks. At best, the progress would be described as reformist. I wonder if there are better chances at highjacking the Republican Party.
Obviously, the Republican Party is the polar opposite of the left at the moment. However, there is a growing segment of the Republican Party which shares some sentiments with the left. Many of these people can be found in Ron Paul’s camp. They have a contempt for the War in Iraq and other imperialist ventures of the United States. They also spout a good deal of anti-corporate rhetoric. Furthermore, they are critical of the government, which is something they have in common with the civil libertarians and anarchists on the left. If a leftist (or a coordinated slate of leftists) were to run for Republican nominations to local and state offices on a campaign emphasizing an end to the wars and the reigning in of big business and big government, they may have a chance at victory. Such a victory would grant them instant ballot access and automatic votes from many partisan voters who make electoral decisions based on letters (D or R). At the very least, it would be interesting. If this were to happen on an increasing scale, these leftists would gain more control of the Republican Party, with the possible outcome of gaining control over the entire apparatus. Such ideological takeovers have happened in the past.
Of course, my favored strategy to electoral success for the left is through electoral reform and the dismantling of the two-party system (for emphasis: the two-party system is effectively a one-party system in most areas of the United States). The goal of reforms and of the electoral system in general is empowerment of people and democratic governance. Solutions which would get us closer to actual democracy, and in my view leftist government, are wide-ranging and deep since they deal with large and complex systemic problems. Proportional representation is a good example. A favorite idea of mine is the make the Senate elected by proportional representation. The current process for determining the makeup of the Senate is highly undemocratic, allocating seats based on land instead of population (remember when only land-owners could vote?). While proportional representation can cause legislatures to be unstable, the fact that there are two houses of Congress and a President mean that any instability would have minimal effect on the overall government (moreover, it can’t be much worse than it currently is, with extreme partisan gridlock and filibusters preventing much of anything ever getting done). Furthermore, the system of committees in Congress naturally fits with proportional representation.
An even simpler reform is to increase the size of the House of Representatives. For most of United States history, the number of members of the House was increased with the decennial census. This hasn’t happened since the beginning of the 1900s. It wouldn’t take a Constitutional amendment or anything, Congress just has to pass a law. It is silly that a member of the House sometimes represents an entire state and on average 650,000 people.
A much better system for elections in single-member districts than simple plurality is instant runoff voting. Mayors, governors, Congressional representatives, Presidents, and more should all be elected in this manner so as to ensure that they have been elected by an actual majority. Furthermore, this would allow voters to vote for the candidate they most agree with instead of the lesser of two evils.
Finally, campaign finance reform is badly needed. The 2008 Presidential campaign might have cost $1 billion. People’s votes should determine the government, not money.
There are many other reforms that are necessary to improve the electoral system in the United States. Such reforms would bring us a long way toward government by the people, which would bring much-needed leftist reforms to this country. In the meantime, speculating about possible takeovers of the GOP are fun too.
Filed under: Uncategorized
