The United States of America needs a multi-party for the survival of its democracy, or it will continue its escalation of democratic erosion. The past two presidential elections in 2016 and 2020 have shown a deep, bipartisan division in the U.S. that is negatively affecting its democracy. And if this deep division grows larger at a constant rate in which it is now, the United States is at high risk of losing its democracy completely.
America’s bi-party system has forced the American citizens to divide themselves into two irreconcilable teams. Furthermore, it reduces the American citizens into “winners” and “losers”, instead of citizens finding pros and cons to candidates that would be potentially representing them. Meaning, American citizens are so invested in their “teams”, or which respective political party they identify with, that they dehumanize and demonize the opposing party. Americans are beginning to view the opposing political party as the party that will end democracy or bring about the fall of America, when in reality the infighting and boardline political wars between the two parties will be what brings about the fall of American democracy.
Furthermore on this point, extreme political polarization has caused the country to be divided into extreme “us vs. them” tribes. Because of this, those that most closely identify with one party or the other, being either the Republican party or the Democratic party, are beginning to see the other side as an existential threat. In a poll conducted in 1994, only 16% of Americans said that they thought the other political party was a threat to the nation. By 2016, that number had increased to 44% of Democrats and 47% of Republicans. Therefore, this raised polarization and increased sense of threat to each respective political party’s standing raises not only the stakes of the elections, but also raises the growing chaos and hostility surrounding elections.
This leads us into the problems with gerrymandering and the Electoral College, and how the use of these two tools further drive a wedge between the two political parties. There are numerous issues that can be discussed on gerrymandering and the electoral process themselves, but utilization of these “tools” to suppress minority voters and having the presidential candidate winning all of the votes of a state creates this extreme sense of winner take all. Because of this, the “losers” feel as though they are not represented by the government, which creates a feeling of extreme disdain between the two political parties and mistrust of the “other team”. Likewise, when a certain group or leader comes into power and fears losing that power, which most end up doing at some point or another in history, most will do anything in order to change the rules or create an uneven playing field for their opponents in order to hold on to their power and avoid losing. This creates further deep polarization and mistrust in our political system, because there is this feeling that the two political parties are at war with each other and they must win this political war in order to stay in power.
So how is this two-party system in the U.S. one of the key issues leading towards America’s democratic erosion? The main answer is that it is causing a deep, hostile division in American citizens with each other, and it is also creating a huge issue of mistrust in the government and representatives from both parties. The former could cause huge levels of violent political infighting between the two parties if the levels of hostility between the two continue to progress at the rate in which they are going, because both parties are increasing to believe that the other party is a threat to the entire nation. The latter reason could lead to citizens simply not participating in elections, because they do not trust the process, or believing that they are not actually able to vote for the representative that they want in a fair manor (think claims of voter fraud and “rigged” elections that have majorly surfaced in 2020). These two reasons are extremely important in the backsliding of democracy, because one of the key components of a democracy is the citizens’ ability to fairly and freely vote on who represents and leads them in the government.
So what can we do about this system, or how can we change it, in order to prevent democratic erosion in the U.S.? Really and truly the only way to break this destructive political system is to break the electoral and political systems that enforce it, which is much easier said than done. The American system is not divided as it is, being Democrats vs. Republicans, because the American people only want two choices, but instead it is divided because in these winner-take-all, us vs. them elections, third parties cannot emerge. We’ve seen that done time and time again with the Libertarian party, which is technically the third party in the U.S. elections, but holds absolutely no standing in comparison in the actual elections. A break down what the exact parties might break into to form at least five or six parties can be found in FP’s article.
The ultimate takeaway in having multiple parties is that more people would be represented and less would feel as though they are “losers” or have no trust in the government. American democracy has a lot of improvement that needs to be in the future to reverse the backsliding it is faced with, but incorporating a multi-party system into the elections and in the government would increase the U.S.’s odds of combating democratic erosion by providing more representation for its citizens and breaking out of this volatile “us vs. them” system that America finds itself stuck in today.
Chase Duncan
I think this is an extremely important issue and one that I have raised with some of my friends in discussing the democratic process. The first-past-the-post system of US democracies also can facilitate radicalization. For example, in the early Republican primaries, Trump managed to push the party right on sociocultural issues (the key issue for far-right groups), resulting in the republican party at large adopting those positions in order to remain in the good graces of the president. The so-called Never Trumpers quickly fell in line or suffered ostracization.
Likewise, the DNC is imploding from factionalization amongst the progressive caucus and the neoliberal center. The fault lines in this conflict stem from healthcare issues and racial justice mostly. It is unclear whether the parties will be able to adequately reckon with these internal issues, but what is clear is that they matter in polarization.
This brings up greater questions of what to do about this issue? Is a proportional system the answer? They offer outlets for more radical groups to have representation in the legislature without resulting in massive mainstreaming of radical ideologies. However, that would require amendments to the constitution and fundamentally shift the way politics works in the US. If we can’t alter the system that well. If Duverger’s Law holds true, then so long as the first-past-the-post system continues so too does the two-party system. Third-party alternatives can only hope to see their positions adopted by the mainstream parties and then dwindle out.
Also to what extent does our media landscape influence our polarization and its relationship to the two-party system? Can regulatory change help alleviate these problems?
Anthony Eafford
From every political science course I’ve taken, non-partisan article I’ve read, and general survey work that I’ve done personally, most Americans are moderate. However, the problem occurs due to, as you stated, polarization. Polarization between opposing factions results in more extremist candidates and policies. For candidates to get the backing of their party, instead of doing what they (the candidate) thinks is right, they must bow to the will of their party. Therefore this gives us two parties who can barely communicate, let alone compromise. From the outside, looking in, someone unfamiliar with American politics would think that Democrats and Republicans were not working towards the same goal. I do not believe either party would intentionally go out of their way to mess up the country that they both call home. But, the division occurs in how we should go about prospering the entire country of America. Just in the most recent 2020 election, we all know someone who voted democrat or republican because that is what they have always done. That is a prime example of a person’s political identity becoming synonymous with their own being. This is inherently bad because it causes people to view the other party as the enemy and be even less willing to compromise. I think that is bad, and it should not be that way. But, a vote towards the green party or an independent candidate is effectively useless at this moment. The two party system we have is so established that it would be nigh-impossible to break up the current parties or get a new party to burst on the scene altogether. Granted, I agree with you wholly, but we do not have a better alternative at the moment. I would rather something be mediocre and we know what the problem is, rather than something we do not know about yet (I.E. a new party system) and the problems it would present. I.E, to me a known unknown (we know there is a problem, but don’t know how to fix it) is better than an unknown unknown (we don’t know what it is or how it would work)
Marissa Linn
Nice article, MaKenna! You do an excellent job of illustrating the tribal, mistrustful mentality in our current party system. It makes me wonder how this win-at-all-costs system really developed. I think part of it stems from the Manichean views that have permeated both parties. For Republicans, one need only look to popular right wing conspiracies like QAnon to see their casting of Democrats as evil, cannibal pedophiles at worst, or simple extremists trying to destroy the country at best. For Democrats, one might forget the frequent portrayal of all Republicans as ignorant bigots with no chance for education or understanding, reading to oppress all minorities at the drop of a hat. It seems all differences have been put under a magnifying glass and blown up. While differences can make a country stronger by providing a variety of perspectives, it seems the demographic separation of the parties and lack of cross-cutting cleavages have made our differences dangerous and threatening. Maybe by splitting into multiple parties, those passion-dampening cleavages will return and the Manichean fears will fade.
Ed Schmeltzer
I really enjoyed this article! I think the question I have is what concrete steps can we take as Americans to create a multi-party system, and how that system can be safeguarded against democratic erosion. I think you are spot-on when talking about the levels of polarization in the US and how much they are causing our democracy to erode due to, as other commenters have pointed out, the Manichean way in which the parties see each other—both as the enemy, as opposed to a political rival who must be negotiated with. However, I do not think that just because a state is a multi-party system, all problems regarding democratic erosion are solved. Indeed, lots of European countries have had this problem. Germany is a good example; the alt-right Alternative for Germany party in the 2017 parliamentary election won over 12% of the popular vote, as well as seats in the Bundestag—the first time this has happened. Indeed, over the past seven years, their membership has risen from 17,687 to 35,100. A similar, perhaps more dramatic rise can be seen in Estonia, where the far-right EKRE party won enough of the vote in the 2019 elections that it is now the second member of the three-party ruling coalition. In essence, I believe that while a multiple-party system can be helpful, especially to the issues that America is facing right now, I would hesitate to present it as the solution—a multi-party system can be as susceptible to populist erosion as a dual-party system, if not constructed with safeguards or gatekeeping.
Grace Kaldor
I really liked your comparison to ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ in terms of the outcomes of elections. The recent elections have felt that way. It no longer seems to simply be a political problem, it is a human problem. People are associating the opposite party with bad morals. The statistics you provided about the perceived threat the opposite party is to national security is incredibly dangerous. To genuinely believe the opposite party is a danger completely raises the stakes of any election. I recently was able to watch a virtual roundtable on the 2020 American Presidential Election, and it has a couple of points that really apply to your blog post! Daniel Ziblatt talks about how there is no longer an incentive to diversity the platform of either political party. It is clear to see that they can still win without the median voters, so there is no need to become more moderate. I personally saw many different posts on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram about how voting for a third party is the same as throwing away your vote. How would you combat an opinion such as this? Is there hope for any sort of third party? Like Daniel Ziblatt said in his argument, there is no need for these two majority parties to succumb to moderation as they can be successful and get elected into office without doing so. I completely agree with your point of how having a multi-party system would be beneficial for our democracy. However, how can we do this if there is no reason for these parties to quit their current behavior and tactics?
Avery Mitchem
Great article! I agree that the political parties are contributing to polarization in America, but I am unsure that more parties would be the solution. While more people would be represented by candidates during the election, there would still only be one “winner.” Even if it were a solution to the problem, I do not see it being realistic or feasible in the United States. The current third party in the US, the Libertarian party, struggles to survive. There are many people who align with their platform, but they will not cast their vote for them because they feel that their candidate does not have a chance at victory. I think it would be very difficult to convince Americans to change their mindset from a two party system. It also makes me wonder if breaking people down into more groups would divide people more? It is likely that if there were more political parties, their platforms would be more specific and niche, ultimately making people feel even further away from the party that was elected. Having a two party system forces candidates to make somewhat broad platforms in an effort to get as many people on board as possible. I think that having more parties would allow people to be in groups that are more tailored to their ideas, but people would also be less incentivized to find common ground with other people. In a time when the country is so divided, more division is not needed. The two party system definitely needs to be improved, but not by adding more parties.
Stasya Rodionova
I agree that the “us v.s. them” mentality you mentioned is certainly exacerbated by polarization and the two party system. However, I wonder if those kinds of hostilities are a symptom of other kinds of divisions and problems in our political system. Although I think it’s a fair assessment to say that the US finds itself in a unique position in terms of polarization due to the two party system, it seems to me that parliamentary systems abroad also experience this struggle. With the rise of the far right recently, it appears as if many are dealing with increased hostilities between the political right and political left. In my opinion, this seems to point to deeper divisions and hostilities rather than to a unique phenomenon occurring within two party systems. I understand your argument to be that the two party system is worsening the divide, but I’m concerned that in a country with a long history of a two party system that any new emerging parties would not placate the hostilities but actually escalate them. Maybe part of the reason why I say this is because in the aftermath of the 2016 Presidential Election there was a lot of backlash and bitterness at 3rd party and undecided voters. The emergence of a plurality would challenge the monopoly and authority of these two long-standing parties, which I struggle to think they will take easily or be welcome to changes like that. On top of that, I’m weary that in a multiple party system there could be a lot of redirected anger at these new emerging parties for “splitting the vote.” In a way, it could also lead to the creation of a new kind of polarization and antagonism. That being said, this is kind of speculative and you make a good point in your article about how the current system has contributed to this issue.
Savannah Simpson
Hello, MaKenna!
I completely agree with this post. It would seem as if George Washington knew what he was talking about when he warned us about political parties. I’m a person who holds conservative values but also supports some ideals on the more liberal side. I feel “politically homeless” because I didn’t want to vote for either candidate on the ballot this past November. The two-party system in America suppresses the idea that you can start at the bottom and rise to the top. If a third party person is running for office, the polarization of this country essentially enables the traditional rise to success story from happening.
Joe Jorgensen, the third-party candidate for President in 2020, was a great candidate in my opinion. She represented a lot of ideals from both sides that I agreed with. But essentially, my vote wouldn’t matter because the polarization is so strong in America. It’s interesting to look at the 2020 election and see how further apart the country is from 2016.
With the suspected election fraud, it further caused people to distrust the government which just makes the whole situation worse.
I do think it is hard to find on person who truly represents so many people. It is going to take a moderate candidate from either side who is able to listen to their opposers and still take their preferences into consideration. The only way to put trust back into our government officials is for the American people to not make such enemies out of them. One question: do you think Trump’s lawsuits added to this distrust? Even as a conservative person, I believe it was a bad move. He has every right to do this, but the fact a President didn’t accept the outcome of an election because he didn’t win shows how strong the distrust is. It will be very interesting to see how the country heals and unites going forward. I truly hope positive change is in the future.
Lauren Alvarez-Romero
I enjoyed reading your post! I would first like to say that I think you raise some excellent points in your post. Polarization is certainly a problem in American politics, and it definitely has a strong impact on the quality of our democracy. I like the point you make by saying that polarization makes “winners” and “losers” instead of finding the “pros and cons” to a quality candidate. I also think that many Americans could, as you said, still find some good in a candidate that they do not support, if somehow our polarization was not so extreme. I like that you mentioned the “us versus them” mentality that American polarization perpetuates. As we have learned in class this semester, this can be especially dangerous to democracy because it creates a “security first, democracy second” mentality, which causes people to feel like the opposing party is an actual threat to the country.
I agree with you that a multi-party system would represent more minority groups in America better than the two-party system that we currently have. I do, however, have some clarification questions: What do you think would be the best way to go about implementing a multi-party system? Are you suggesting an entire overhaul of the system through which the Republican and Democrat parties are eliminated completely and then replaced with other parties? If so, I am curious to know what your ideas would be about what these other parties would look like and for whom they would advocate or for what issues they would promote solutions.
Also, do you think there is still as much polarization in other countries that have multi-party systems? For example, I wrote a post earlier this week about Chile, a multi-party country that is very polarized, specifically over the economic inequality. I am interested to hear your thoughts and opinions.
Overall, this was a great read! I thoroughly enjoyed your post!
Mary Renfroe
Hi MaKenna! I found your article very interesting. The two-party system in the United States is definitely perpetuating the extreme level of polarization that now exists between Democrats and Republicans. Since (like you mention in your blog) people see the opposition as the enemy, people are voting to win. That is not the purpose of having elections though. Elections are supposed to be an accountability mechanism and a way to prevent corruption in government. Citizens should be able to hold government officials accountable in elections. If citizens are just going to vote along party lines though, then how will incumbents from their party ever be held accountable? Not to mention citizens are likely to excuse greater levels of corruption if it is a member of their own party. If the United States did have a multi-party system, I agree that there wouldn’t be the same levels of current polarization. However, I do not think the a multi-party system is the only solution. One of the main issues currently is that the parties are increasingly becoming homogenous. What the United States’ two-party system needs is increases in cross-cutting cleavages between the parties. These cross-cutting cleavages act as a stabilizer in the two-party system, and their reduction has reduced the two-party system’s effectiveness.
Mylon Patton
Makenna, I greatly enjoyed this read. I appreciate your insight as you really attempt to place a sense of urgency on this matter of polarization. Diversity in thought is good, but when polarization becomes so large, as to almost fully discourage ‘working across the aisle,’ it is only logical that either side of the political spectrum would do everything in their power to obtain, consolidate, and retain power – whether it is healthy or not for the larger American democracy. And, there are some lines in the sand that must be drawn, but it is a testament to the failure of our political system and conversation when we, as you put it, are so invested in our ‘teams’ that we ‘dehumanize and demonize the opposing party.’ I would be interested in your perspective regarding this: how do you have the difficult conversations without being quick to label the other side in disparaging terms, especially when it is not needed? Do you think the media contributes to this polarizing environment?
Nevertheless, I also appreciated your understanding and exhalation of the consequences of polarization and symptoms of democratic erosion. Gerrymandering and the Electoral College, two phenomena that you mentioned, are inextricably linked – bolstered by the suppression of minority voters. I agree with a solution that you postulated, though as you mentioned, dismantling the two-party system is easier said than done. Really great read, and great job.
Patrick McGovern
I think that the points you bring up in your post are obviously super important in todays America. While I am only 22, I feel like I am always talking to people about how I’ve never experienced a time when politics and political identity were so relevant. This, however, is not the stem of the issue. I think even more importantly than how much partisanship is being talked about is how the scope of how partisanship is looked at has changed. Most people do not look at members of the opposite party and see people with different views anymore, but instead see people they think less of or don’t like. I think this is partially from a normalization of polarization ushered in by Trump and his administration. Differences have been more highlighted, especially due to some recent, tenser issues that have put these differences on display. People have played around with the idea of moving away from a two party system and towards a more multi-party system, but I’m not sure how effective this would be. I fear people would just form factions or blocs and the issue we see now would be the same, just in a different costume. Additionally, parties do have merit in some respects. They simplify political policy for many Americans who don’t have the time or resources to understand everything.
Abigail Winograd
Hi MaKenna, I really appreciate your argument here. Ever since I could remember, I have understood our political party system in the United States to be an “us” versus “them” issue. I judged people for voting a certain way because I grew up hearing my parents talk disparagingly about Republican voters for as long as I could remember. The party system has become quite sectarian, with the parties polarizing voters to opposite extremities under the notion that the other side thinks completely differently and are thus evil. It is also tribal; people of minorities are grouped together under the Democratic vote and often seen as traitors if they lean differently. When I think about multi party systems, I am drawn to compare the United States with Israel’s parliament. Israel has a number of parties that need to not only get a majority of votes, but also form coalitions to take power of the government. This sounds good in theory, but because there are so many political parties, most election seasons involve numerous re-elections because no one party gets enough votes to be considered majority. With increasing polarization in the United States and the inflammatory way that social media can portray current events and political opinions, the two party system in the United States does not have a sustainable democratic future. I am curious if and how a multi party system will be implemented in the United States and how the deeply imbedded psychology of polarization will be addressed.
Matthew Holmquist
I liked your post Makenna. You may be interested in taking a glance at my blog posts as I am also interested in solving this issue. I do agree with the comment posted by Grace Kaldor when she says that it would be difficult to create a multi-party system because our institutions inevitably create it. However, assuming that it is possible for the U.S. to accommodate a multi-party system, we must seriously consider its implications before determining if it would be desirable. I liked the final words of Anthony Eafford’s comment when he noted that, while polarization is terrible for democracy, it is a known unknown. Adopting an entirely new party system would create a swathe of unknown unknowns.
As you say, however, the U.S. will “continue its escalation of democratic erosion” if it does not adopt a multi-party system. There is truth to that. The “us vs them” nature of all modern democracies has certainly increased as we’ve gotten more focused on our differences rather than our commonalities. If the United States does wish to go to a multi-party direction however, we have to determine which parties are actually going to receive consideration.
For example, should a national audience be given to a political party formed from members of the KKK? Is it in the best interest of democracy to let a far-right fascist party spread its message to a large audience as the British National Party did in the UK? Would a communist or an anarchist or a overtly racist group be given just as much air time as a republican or democrat in a major network debate?
One of the strongest arguments against a multi-party system is its tendency to give a voice to these very dangerous ideals. Of course, it is true that people should be represented by the people that share their views, but should representation be given to the most heinous and despicable aspects of our humanity?
Livi Hally
You make some great points about the danger polarization causes for our political system, and I completely agree that the binary nature of our political system is frustrating. On the extreme ends, it leaves people feeling like they are “settling” for a political party that doesn’t inherently align with their beliefs because they see the other as a threat to democracy. In the middle, people feel their beliefs don’t directly align with a political party as well. More robust and specific political parties would make everyone feel more engaged in the political process, and like they can vote for something they really believe in.
It’s hard to think about American politics not being as intensely polarized as it is now. I think you are completely right in acknowledging the role of the two-party system in perpetuate that and creating an us-versus-them mentality. Not only has this eroded our democratic system, but also cuts deep and becomes more personal. Great job!
Rishika Singh
This is an incredibly well written article! You pose such a fascinating solution for an imminent threat to the United States’ democracy. It’s clear that the two-party system breeds polarization, as generational evidence has conveyed the significant reduction in mutual toleration. Elections are no longer impersonal events. As polarization progresses, so does the inherent politicization of a multitude of non-political issues. When issue positions directly influence people’s lives, they have a much higher stake in the election and are more willing to see the opposition in a negative light. It also means that when an election is at stake, candidates and part members are willing to do more to secure their victory. For this reasoning, gerrymandering, the electoral college, and voter suppression should also be viewed as relevant precursors to democratic erosion. Mutual toleration for the opposition party is on the decline and it’s unlikely that the state of social justice and racial affairs will seem some decrease in partisan strength.
I wonder, however, if a multi-party system will truly accomplish what we think it will? It seems hopeful to presume that the dispersion of the two major political parties would allow for some reduction in the polarization, but I feel as this may be too utopian. It could work, but the relics of the two-party system would retain their stronghold over the American political atmosphere probably ensuring that everyone still generally understood their left/right wing identity. Furthermore, while it’s clear that the American two-party system causes polarization, there’s no clear indicators that this wouldn’t be the exact same case in a larger setting with more actors. Are there institutional ways to reduce polarization at a domestic level that don’t involve drastic measures? These measures may include: regulation of false information distributed to the public, efforts to thwart the rise of populism and populist leaders, and education.
Rishika Singh
This is an incredibly well written article! You pose such a fascinating solution for an imminent threat to the United States’ democracy. It’s clear that the two-party system breeds polarization, as generational evidence has conveyed the significant reduction in mutual toleration. Elections are no longer impersonal events. As polarization progresses, so does the inherent politicization of a multitude of non-political issues. When issue positions directly influence people’s lives, they have a much higher stake in the election and are more willing to see the opposition in a negative light. It also means that when an election is at stake, candidates and party members are willing to do more to secure their victory. For this reasoning, gerrymandering, the electoral college, and voter suppression should also be viewed as relevant precursors to democratic erosion. Mutual toleration for the opposition party is on the decline and it’s unlikely that the state of social justice and racial affairs will seem some decrease in partisan strength.
I wonder, however, if a multi-party system will truly accomplish what we think it will? It seems hopeful to presume that the dispersion of the two major political parties would allow for some reduction in the polarization, but I feel as this may be too utopian. It could work, but the relics of the two-party system would retain their stronghold over the American political atmosphere probably ensuring that everyone still generally understood their left/right wing identity. Furthermore, while it’s clear that the American two-party system causes polarization, there’s no clear indicators that this wouldn’t be the exact same case in a larger setting with more actors. Are there institutional ways to reduce polarization at a domestic level that don’t involve drastic measures? These measures may include: regulation of false information distributed to the public, efforts to thwart the rise of populism and populist leaders, and education.