Some conservative groups are openly suggesting abandonment of the Republican Party in 2008 and are looking for “third party” candidates who better represent their views. The exodus from the Democratic Party continues to pick up momentum with their traditional voters looking for a new home. Perhaps it is time for a more fundamental look at our “two party” system and the potential consequences of mass desertion.
Allow me to start with what for some may seem overly didactic. Our Constitution, which defines our democratic system, is literally nonpartisan. Constitutional authors intended that each vote would be cast for a person – not a party. The voting process we use today, which identifies party affiliation at the time of voting and makes it convenient to cast a partisan vote, did not begin without controversy. There is no doubt in my mind that this change has led to a more partisan view of politics. Fewer people see beyond party politics to develop expectations about individual candidates than ever before.
The argument against voting for candidates that best represent us is well known. Candidates in either of the largest parties are quick to point out that voting for a member of a third party is “throwing your vote away.” Those on the right must consolidate the power of their votes to defeat the left. Those on the left likewise feel that they must support a single party to defeat the right.
The genius of our formally defined system is this. If the representatives we send to Congress are those that best represent our communities, then the mix in Congress will collectively best represent us as a nation. If a candidate is selected that best represents the views of the local community then as representative, he or she will most likely vote on legislation in a way that reflects the community’s will. This will sometimes be in a way that we think of as conservative or liberal; independent of party affiliation but dependent on the views of the community that sent the representative.
If Republicans have a proposal that the community agrees with, it is likely that our representative will vote for it. If a bill does not reflect our views, then what does party affiliation with the bill mean? Should our representative vote for this bill as well, because we cast our votes on the basis of a narrow consideration – whether their party rhetoric was associated with the right or left?
There is a great diversity of thought and opinion on the wide variety of issues that are now handled by government. It is impossible for all views on all topics to be assembled in such a way that we are well represented by only two parties. It is for this reason that the “two party system” must treat politics as a trick. What this trick has provided to us is easy to observe during any election season. The nation is polarized by superficial arguments driven by emotion. Many voters feel adrift. Voter turn-out is relatively low. More votes are cast against what is perceived to be the greater of two evils than for the candidates who run.
Casting a vote for president presents a different problem. Only one person will be elected. I would propose the following if it was not so unlikely to occur. I will instead provide food for thought in the hope that this idea will not be immediately forgotten. It is my view that candidates for the office of president should not be allowed to run as a member of a political party. When candidates are selected in party caucuses and primaries, they are selected as party leaders. This would make sense if we had an entirely different political system; namely a parliamentary system in which a prime minister was being selected. We do not have such a system. When we select a president, we need to do our best to elect someone who cares more about the good of the country than the good of a political party. We can never do our best in that selection while those seeking the office must first pass a partisan test before they are perceived as serious candidates.
