Binary Myopia

Would our government work better as a multi-party system?

Dec 12, 2020

“There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”
-John Adams

Red and Blue. Republican and Democrat. In the beginning there were the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. Our two-party system literally emerged before the ink on the Constitution was dry. The Framers had warned of the development of what they termed factions: Hamilton and Jefferson emphasized this exact point in The Federalist Papers. But the battle over the Constitution’s ratification proved to be an incubator for a for-and-against partisanship that grew into two opposing political parties even as the embryonic government assumed power. George Washington, who had no party affiliation, cautioned in his Farewell Address against “combinations and associations… by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government…”

It was too late. The genie was out of the bottle- American politics were destined to be dominated by two major parties. In one sense, the Founders themselves were responsible for creating the conditions which gave us binary politics. Having little experience with national elections, they adhered to the model they knew, single-ballot, winner-takes-all contests. Political scientists refer to such elections as “first-past-the-pole”- the winner is whoever gains a simple majority or, in the case of multi-candidate elections, a plurality. Political scientists theorize that such elections tend to foster the growth of two-party systems (Duverger’s Law).

This” winner-take-all, loser-goes-home” approach encourages the formation of large electoral coalitions and squeezes out smaller parties. The 116th Congress began with only Democrats and Republicans in the House and 98 of 100 Senators similarly aligned. It might be argued that casting a vote for a losing candidate in these elections is effectively not voting at all. While it is true third parties have existed for most of our history, they have rarely impacted the outcome of an election.* On the state and local level, there are scores of minor parties which for myriad reasons are often denied ballot access. The possibility that the two major parties have used their control of state governments to hinder such access should not be discounted.

One ballot mechanism which might level the playing field for smaller parties is proportional representation (“PR”). There are a variety of PR electoral systems which share the same core principle: Create multi-member districts; parties or groups are awarded a seats in a district directly proportional to the percentage of the vote they received in an election. A party which won 30% of the vote would receive 30% of that district’s seats. This ensures that every vote counts and minority parties are represented. It eliminates winner-take-all and promotes the growth of minority parties.

The argument against multi-party systems is that it makes legislating difficult, a questionable position given the gridlock that keeps Congress in a condition of legislative stasis. This was not true for most of the 20th Century, since the two American parties were not particularly ideological. There were liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. The landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed with a higher percentage of Republican votes in both Houses than Democratic. The differences between the parties were regional: On the same Civil Rights Act, over 90% of Congressmen and Senators from the states of the former Confederacy voted “Nay”. Fourteen years earlier, the American Political Science Association’s Committee on Political Parties complained that the lack of ideological differences "between the parties… are defined so badly that it is often difficult to determine what the election has decided even in broadest terms”.

The pendulum has since swung to the other extreme. The long-held belief among political scientists is that, in a two-party system, both parties will over time run to the center, the median voter theory. Yet, we have witnessed the opposite, as the parties, especially the Republican Party, have become more ideological. Perhaps this is the result of the GOP realizing the need to expand their voting base if they were to be competitive in national elections. Beginning with the Reagan campaign’s embrace of the Christian Right in 1980, cultural issues vied with public policy as issues of political importance. In the 1990’s, led by Speaker Newt Gingrich, Congressional Republicans took the position that governing was combat and the Democrats were the enemy. Where the Founders saw compromise as essential to solving inevitable policy differences in a representative democracy, Republicans eschewed it, opting instead for aggression and brinkmanship when dealing with Congressional Democrats and President Bill Clinton. The floodgates of polarization burst open. The deluge of divisiveness had not abated in the ensuing decades.

Would a Multi-Party Congress Work

The Constitution created a structure based on separating the power and authority of government into three co-equal branches. Contrast this with most multi-party democracies, especially parliamentary systems, where a majority party in the legislature chooses executive branch officials (the Cabinet) from among its members. When no single party has a majority, the party with a plurality builds a coalition with another party or parties to reach the threshold necessary for forming a government. As a consequence, coalitions exist for the purpose of governance and require negotiation and compromise.

Our binary system results in coalitions formed to win elections. The Republicans and Democrats are big-tent parties, each encompassing groups often at ideological odds with each other. Their goal is not governance in the deliberation-debate- compromise model the Framers envisioned, but to win control of the levers of power. Despite the talk of bipartisanship from elected officials, there is no benefit for either party in cooperating with the opposition. Working together is seen as enhancing the position of the majority, a disincentive for the minority wanting to make the case for becoming the majority. Conversely, the majority sees supporting legislation put forward by the minority as acting against its self-interest .

Suppose our politics were to devolve to a four-party system, perhaps a left, right, center-left, and center-right alignment. How would that work within our current Constitutional structure? Focus on a Congress where no single party has the majority. Coalitions would be required in order to pass legislation. These would not necessarily be permanent coalitions, but may vary from issue to issue. Parties may campaign on their ideology, but they would be ultimately judged on their ability to legislate.

As for Presidential politics, all candidates for the nation’s highest office would conceivably represent minority parties. Even with the clumsiness of the Electoral College mechanism, candidates would need to broaden their approach if they were to reach the (current) 270 vote majority. In the event no candidate did so, the House of Representatives would decide upon the winner. Again, a House with no clear majority party would need to form an inter-party coalition to reach the decision.

It is possible that such a realignment could occur without significant structural changes to the Federal government- no Constitutional amendments, for example. Both parties exhibit stress fractures that might easily become full-fledged schisms. The Democratic Party endures sniping between its Progressives and moderates on a regular basis. The Republican Party of Donald Trump has veered into the lane of white nationalism, inciting an exodus of traditional conservatives and other moderates.

The stage is set. The time may be at hand to set aside the binary logic of the two-party system and move to a government that better reflects the politics of a large and diverse population.

1hundredsixty8

Discussion about this post

Ready for more?