Whither the “Two-Party" System?
© May 2, 2009

I just watched the Glenn Beck show on Fox News Channel today and was disturbed by only one thing.

He had a group of “Tea Party” attendees in studio to dispel many of the lies and distortions we’ve seen about the “Tea Party” movement. This studio audience did a fine job of taking our government leaders to task for fiscal and social policy mismanagement. They showed themselves to fit none of the mainstream media distortions. One journalist in the audience observed that Jefferson and Madison would have recognized in the opinions of that audience, the government they worked to create, and in the mainstream media and many of our political elites, the government the founders worked to overthrow.

There was just one moment in all of this discussion which disturbed me: By a unanimous show of hands they indicated they do not believe in the “two-party system.”

It is easy to understand where this sentiment comes from. Both of the major parties have been guilty of extreme abuse of our constitutional system of government. So if both parties have become badly misguided, why would rejection of the traditional two-party system be cause for concern?

Many Americans have not taken the time to appreciate the wisdom of the two-party system. They reject the recent actions of both parties, but they “throw the baby out with the bathwater” when they reject the two-party system. Why is this?

Our constitutional republic form of government was created by men who shared a profound respect for the frailty of man. Our founders understood well that power may, and very often does, corrupt even the best of men. When we read the debates among our founders as they crafted our government with its historic “separation of powers” structure, we can see clearly that they sought to create obstacles to over-concentration of power. They knew that if either the executive, or the legislative, or the court systems of our national government could become dominant, the abuse of that power would be the undoing of our republic, and our freedoms. Indeed any serious student of the constitutional debates of our founders knows that they had the humility to realize that even they themselves could not be trusted with any over-concentration of power.

There is a very subtle principle here that must be examined carefully. It is not that two, or three, or five is a better number for divisions of government or parties, the question is, how do we structure our system so that we prevent “over-concentration of power,” because power corrupts men. Our three-part government serves this end because no one of the three parts of our government can exercise unlimited power without the cooperation of the other two. A two-party system also serves this end of preventing “over-concentration of power” because it requires that at least 50% of the voters agree for any given candidate to be elected.

Our “party” political system requires that the “parties” have “primary elections” to nominate their candidates, and we then convene “general elections” where the nominated candidates of these parties compete for the overall vote of the whole body of voters.

It is simple arithmetic to analyze the percentage of voters who must agree to elect a candidate from among several choices. With two choices, there must be at least 50% plus one vote to elect a candidate. With three parties, there need only be 33% plus one who agree, to elect a candidate, with ten parties, there would only need be 10% plus one. A system of more than 2 parties, thus, allows a concentration of power which may inevitably be injurious to the quality of our leadership.

The problem is that this self-same concentrating effect is dangerously seductive. We do not begin third parties as equal 33% competitors. If I join a minority party of say 5% of the electorate, I will very likely be able to find a party with whom I have a great deal of common cause. But that party, by definition cannot win, and of the remaining two parties who can win, I allow the party FARTHEST from my beliefs to become more dominant. Even if I believe we can grow this third party to equal 33% control, I will have created a situation where any group with more than 33% may gain control. I would like to think that my 33% will control, but it is at least as likely that some other 33% will gain control, making this very dangerous. This is a dangerous over-concentration of power, just as would be a government takeover by any one of the three parts of our constitutional government.

The temptation to leave the dominant two parties, is akin to a childish “take my toys and go home” approach to politics. Wisdom says we need to repair or rebuild the party which is closest to our view. This is hard, and often frustrating work. As Benjamin Franklin famously said: “Politics is the art of the possible.” The great strength of the two party system, within a free society of many competing opinions, is that it forces us to choose from among the lesser of two evils. Just because it is impossible to achieve every goal we would like within one of the two parties, we should not be deluded to think that we can do better with three parties; we are very likely to do much worse, despite the seductive “purity” of a third party. We are all tempted to “want our own way,” like a child, but as mature adults in a pluralistic society we must learn to master the art of compromise.

There is no shortcut to reforming our society. If we want to fix things, we must change minds, educate young people, hold our political representatives accountable, become informed about the dominant issues of the day, learn the art of debate, use every form of new media to its fullest, and become activists within whichever one of the dominant parties is closest to our views. If we abandon the dominant parties for a minority third party, we may feel the brief drug-like “rush” as we “get our own way” in the campaign debates, but the history of third party movements is that they serve only to help elect their closest polar-opposite. It’s a nice “rush” during the campaign, but the hangover the morning after election-day lasts for years. Like it or not, that is the practical reality of minority third parties! Those debates belong in the primaries of a major party, rather than the incestuous “love-fest” of a minority party.

But the real seduction of a third party is the belief that we can grow it to become equal to, and ultimately dominant over, the other two parties. This is the hardest seduction to resist, but just as dangerous. If we could grow a third party, along the way to dominance, we create a situation where the BEST 33% of the electorate can win an election, but at the same time we have created a dangerous situation where the WORST 33% of the electorate can win, and the odds are two to one that our view will not dominate.

The conservative view, the view of our founders, who intentionally made it difficult for any small group to gain control, and who created structural obstacles to resist change in our government lest we err in our haste, that view must prefer the two-party system; it is inherently more conservative.

Rather than emasculate a “Libertarian” or “classical liberal” perspective within a fruitless third party, and allow both dominant parties to avoid the pressure to include those views, far better to work within one of the dominant parties. As you take your views out of a dominant party, that party – by definition – moves even farther from your views because your views no longer need be accommodated by it.

As some in our society would move our government closer to fascism or socialism, which would be easier support for that group to gain consensus from? Would it be easier for them to gain the support of 33% of the voters, or 50% of the voters?

The two-party system, in all its frustrating “lesser of two evils” compromises, nevertheless is a vital safety mechanism against the dangerous over-concentration of power which our founders had the great wisdom to guard against. Tyrants can more easily win elections, when a small plurality is allowed to prevail. We would do well to learn from the wisdom of our founders, and master Franklin’s “art of the possible.”