It has long been established that the two-party system is here to stay. A historical precedent, starting with the federalist debate, set the long reigning two-party system. With no shortage of corporate money pouring into both parties, and the winner takes all system of the electoral college, competition pins only the two against each other. The two-party system of the United States creates an environment where, in terms of voting, all ideologies in either wing depend on consolidation. Votes are rarely being won on the left, but are given to the DNC by fear of the latter, four years of the opposition. The two-party system depresses voter opinion, and there is no better place to see this than the progressive versus centrist left wing discourse on Joe Biden.
The struggle is not limited to leftist voters. For example, the libertarian party, which is in support of “Laissez Faire” capitalism, or hands off capitalism, amasses a significant amount of votes each cycle. However, capitalism is a bipartisan issue for both the DNC and the GOP, an idea non-negotiable for the anarcho-capitalists of the libertarian party. A majority of leftists, and less liberals, share little to no common ground with the centrist Democratic candidates that the DNC churns out every cycle. This is why this blog post focuses on the discourse of progressive versus centrist Democrats, a clear and undeniable dilemma surrounding the 2020 election, and not a more generalized version on how the two party system undermines opinion.
Joe Biden is the Democratic nominee for the 2020 presidential election, and his track record is haunting him. From supporting the Iraq war, being the perpetrator in numerous sexual assault allegations, to 40 years of supporting social security cuts, the Democratic nominee has a largely inexcusable track record for leftist and liberal voters alike. For some voters who feel that voting Donald Trump out of office is an predominant feat, it comes down to voting for one of two sexual abusers. No matter one’s views on the left wing spectrum, voting blue comes with, at the very least, a moral dilemma.
Mr. Biden remains a centrist Democrat in his policies today. Treading on eggshells in order to not explicitly express support for Black Lives Matter protests, Joe Biden promises to further fund the police. Mr. Biden opposes medicare for all, in opposition, 88 percent of Democrats support it. Biden rejects support for the Green New Deal. In the wake of racial, climate and medicinal crises, many left wing voters believe in immediate, radical change, to which Biden offers superficial propositions. Progressive voters aren’t happy, but the healthcare industry cannot keep a smile off its’ face!
Since the finalization of Biden’s democractic nomination, born from many previous elections, harm-reduction shaming has taken on a new skin. Liberal voters, who, understandably, are deeply afraid of the Trump presidency, are accepting the fate of “voting blue no matter who”. Viral graphics, organizations such as Settle for Biden, along with hashtags of different variations of #votebluenomatterwho are amassing hundreds of thousands of interactions online. The majority of the media created or ideas presented by liberal voters is not in support of Joe Biden’s candidacy, but against Trump’s.
Perhaps the most alarming is the discourse between “settle for Biden” liberals, and leftists who are either reluctant, not voting blue, or abstaining from voting altogether. Those in support of the movement to elect any Democratic candidate have a disdain for progressives voting third party or abstaining from voting, and accuse them of indirectly casting their vote for Trump. In this article from Politicoup, these accusations are shown well here, “If you’re voting for Trump (or a third party candidate to “punish” the DNC) you have to meet with your Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, Black, Muslim and Hispanic friends and explain why your need for spite is more important than their right to live free and happy lives.” This article was written about the 2016 elections, convincing leftists to vote for Clinton. However, the discourse reins the same in 2020. This claim that non-voters are “too privileged” to acknowledge the detriment of the Trump presidency is not true. Those who are dissatisfied with the two-party system, and do not vote for this reason are disproportionately non-white and poor. Not only this, but liberals, a lot of whom do not favor Biden to a more progessive candidate, are desperate for leftist voters’ support in nominating a candidate who does not earn their vote.
It is important to understand how the two-party system is established, and how the presidential election process is set up in favor of the two-party system. Better known as the “Winner-takes-all” system, most states require a presidential candidate to win the majority vote in the state to win all of its electoral votes. In many states, only one vote is allowed to be cast for the seat. If the candidate is the minority, no matter how close the count is, they will receive no elector’s votes for that state, with the exception of Maine and Nebraska. With very little representation, aside from possible cameos on a local level, and little funding, it is close to impossible to get one’s foot in the door as a third party candidate.
Two-party domination is not only a suppression of voter opinion, but in her paper, Pernicious Polarization and Democratic Resilience: Analyzing the U.S. in Comparative Perspective, Professor McCoy lists it as a symptom of the United States’ democratic fragility. She examines how the two parties interact, citing Donald J Trump’s impeachment hearings. The two parties see one another as an existential threat to the country, or their base, and the dynamic of the GOP and DNC consists of finger pointing and political gridlock. This inhibits the ability of the government to manage conflict, assist during times of crisis(the United States cannot even make enough n94 masks, COVID-19 tests are still not readily available), and other dire issues that need immediate attending by a governing body. The issue of fearing “throwing away” a vote if not casting a ballot for one of two main parties, in itself is great as a suppression of opinion, but it even more so establishes this symptom of democratic backsliding.
While voting is an integral part of our democracy, it is important now, to understand how it can be improved. Ranked choice voting is a system implemented on a local level in many states, but besides Maine, none use it statewide. Ranked choice voting, as it works in Maine, allows, but does not require, voters to list nominees in order of preference. If no candidates win a majority of the votes, the ranked choice process begins. In the elimination process, the candidate with the least amount of votes is eliminated, but those who participated in ranking will have their second choice votes carried over to the next round. Once again, a candidate is eliminated, but votes carry over. This is repeated until a candidate is chosen.
Ranked choice voting may eliminate a lot of issues seen in the liberal dilemma described in this blog. A leftist, whose first choice is Howie Hawkins of the Green Party, now has an option to fit remaining candidates into succeeding positions, while still casting their first choice for the candidate they truly want to see in office. Without the fear of “losing out” on a vote, voters would be free to truly express their opinion on a ballot, and third party candidates have a much higher chance to accept positions in federal office.
No one is to blame but the system that allows the silencing of all but two parties. #Settleforbiden voters are just afraid of the latter, and Joe Biden’s centrist policy is not enough for some leftists to reward the DNC with a vote. The deadlock of two left-wing ideologies, who dislike the same candidate, is a long overdue sign to treat the polarization that is being created by the two-party, single member districts.
Hello Antonina, I really enjoyed reading your blog post! The lack of enthusiasm from those that identified farther left than Biden is something that I resonate with and noticed among friends. I had never thought of two-party domination as a way of suppressing voter opinion but after reading your post it makes a lot of sense. I also really appreciated that you dismissed the claim that non-voters are too privileged to acknowledge the damage Trump has done. On social media I have seen a lot of people limit their activism to encouraging people to vote without recognizing that there are people that are still not helped from a Biden presidency. Especially after seeing how people of color mobilized in key states to deliver a Biden win, I hope that there will be a shift in the Democratic Party, something we might already be seeing with the rise of the progressive wing. Additionally, I appreciated your inclusion of ranked-choice voting as an alternative to the current system. I am a proponent of ranked-choice voting but am unsure about how we can actually see that implemented on a large scale. I am going to school in Massachusetts where there was most recently a referendum about ranked-choice voting that failed. This makes me wonder about massive education campaigns and other tools that might be needed to realistically implement ranked-choice voting.
Hello Antonia. First I wanted to say I am very impressed at this article. I too have thought very much about the two party system in regards to this election. I personally am much more of a libertarian, and did not find myself particularly excited by either candidate. I think the two party system is one of the most common political debates among young people today. For example, the majority of people I have talked to at my university were Bernie Sanders voters in the primary, but chose to “Settle for Biden”. Even though I completely agree with you that the party system needs repair, I do not believe ranked choice voting is the best solution. I think ranked choice voting would complicate an already flawed system of vote counting. We (in Massachusetts) also saw a strong opposition to question two. My proposed solution in light of this is the expansion of third parties in the election. On both the right and the left, the divide between centrists and radicals has increased drastically. I would not be surprised if this fundamental policy difference caused a split in party lines. Resulting in more of a “progressive” and “centrist” party, rather than one unified group. For example, I find it hard to believe that AOC and Tulsi Gabbard both belong to the same party. An article I recently read entitled America Isn’t Really Set up for Third Party Presidential Bids details why the “winner take all system is a detriment to third party candidates. I believe that party dissipation into more similar interest groups would solve this issue, and allow for a more diverse voter field.
I found your post really interesting, particularly your idea of ranked choice voting as a solution. I definitely agree there is merit to the idea of changing how we vote, and that a ranked choice system could potentially help decrease polarization, or at least allow people to vote with their conscience instead of strategically. But I do kind of wonder how feasible that kind of system would be for the United States in particular. Another comment on your post mentions there might need to be campaigns to educate the public about this kind of system in order for it to get implemented in the first place.
But even beyond that, I wonder if this might now cause larger issues and result in even lower voter turnout rates. Though the two-party system has many flaws, it does one thing really well: it simplifies the ballot. By having just two parties, voters have an easy heuristic of who represents their personal preferences. With a ranked choice voting system, I wonder if that might be diminished precisely because it does encourage voters to thoroughly consider each candidate individually. If we ask voters to put in a higher level of thought and research, would it be possible that we’d end up seeing less voters actually showing up to vote? In a nation with an already low average turnout, high barriers to registration in some places, and a decent part of the population without much interest or knowledge about politics, could this create an even greater evil?
Though I agree a ranked choice system would probably create better quality votes, I wonder if it might also create less votes in the United States. And if it did, I think it’s important we ask ourselves if a democracy values more representation or more well-thought out representation.
Hi Antonina, I definitely agree that the “winner-take-all” system is incredibly bad for our overall political system. How can it be possible that of all the millions of Americans with different ideals that there one exists two parties that encapsulate it all? Life in itself isn’t black and white, and I dislike how the government has reduced the most nuanced aspect of our society into two simple checkmarks on a ballot. The “settle-for-biden” movement that you mentioned was a very good example. Thank you for your article