Trouble with the Two Party System and Solution

Some time ago, I shared my belief on social media that the United States Constitution itself is not the problem; rather, it is the individuals who create and enforce laws who are misusing their power. However, a law professor challenged this view, arguing that there are indeed issues within the Constitution itself. He pointed out that the current political climate in the United States, particularly the actions of the President and his party, illustrates these constitutional shortcomings.

When voters enter the polling booth, their choices are typically limited to two major parties. The dominance of these parties makes it difficult for third-party candidates to have a realistic chance of winning, except in some local elections. As a result, voting for a third-party candidate often feels like wasting a vote.

This is a reality that many, including myself, have accepted on a personal level. For example, when William Buckley, a prominent conservative commentator many years ago, was asked who he would support in an upcoming presidential election, he replied, “I will vote for the most conservative candidate that has a chance of winning.” Buckley understood that the flaw in the U.S. Constitution is that it allows only one perspective to govern after an election, and, if the electoral swing is significant, that party can rule with little opposition.

Inspired by Buckley, my own approach has been to vote for the most liberal candidate with a genuine chance of winning. Voting for anyone else, in my view, inadvertently supports the more conservative candidate with a real shot at victory. This has led me to consistently vote for Democratic candidates, even if I did not fully support the individual, their policies, or the party positions on the issues. To do otherwise would be to help the opposing party.

Many voters find themselves in a comparable situation. They support one party not out of strong allegiance, but because they oppose the other. Few voters are staunchly aligned with their party; most fall somewhere along the spectrum between the two extremes. Ultimately, they vote as they do to maintain their representation in government, which has tangible effects on their lives.

But what if voters could support a third, fourth, or even fifth party candidate, someone who best represents their interests, even if that candidate did not win a majority of votes? In such a scenario, multiple parties could be represented in Congress. Much like parliamentary systems in other countries, parties would need to build coalitions to pass legislation. This would ensure that not only those at the political extremes, but also those who are left of center, centrist, or right of center, would have meaningful representation in government decisions.

Currently, Congress operates under strict party lines, with party leaders and the majority party, often aided by the President, controlling the direction of votes. This leaves moderate voices out of the process. In this system, those in the center have little influence. In contrast, parliamentary systems are more fluid, allowing moderate members to negotiate and seek compromise. In such a system, centrist voters would finally have a stake in the process.

Under a parliamentary-inspired system, presidents, who would be chosen by the House of Representatives with multi-party coalitions, would need to collaborate more closely with Congress to accomplish their goals. This would lead to more gradual shifts in government policy rather than abrupt changes. Most importantly, Congress would reclaim its intended role as a co-equal legislative body, rather than acting as a mere rubber stamp for one party. This is the vision the Constitution originally set forth.

Some may believe that this is an unattainable dream, and that the current system is unchangeable. However, reform does not require a revolution; often, revolutions fail. Instead, the Constitution could be amended to create a more equitable government.

Maxwell Stearns, Venable, Baetjer & Howard Professor of Law at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law, has conducted extensive research on this topic. In his book, “Parliamentary America: The Least Radical Means of Radically Repairing Our Broken Democracy,” Stearns outlines the challenges facing the United States and offers a guide for moving toward a more representative government through constitutional amendments.  Yes, instead of a revolution, he proposes amendments to the Constitution. 

This vision is not just a political fantasy. It can become reality if people educate themselves on the possibilities and act toward reform. 

I suggest that you consider reading the book.  If nothing more if will provide a well-articulated description of what is wrong with the current system. 

Maxwell Stearns Bio link: https://www.law.umaryland.edu/faculty--research/directory/profile/index.php?id=373

“Parliamentary America: The Least Radical Means of Racially Repairing Our Broken Democracy” link: https://www.amazon.com/Parliamentary-America-Radically-Repairing-Democracy-ebook/dp/B0C9VPR44R?ref_=ast_author_dp_rw&th=1&psc=1&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.eL136m15K_kbaakPQrEiFWj9sLa3ml0-vEG5QrEjDOJO1fl7jumC204x-I2LGF8i.svhxt7GUFHh8t0q3LobMMLtGikWB8Hu85xSV-OtxEJs&dib_tag=AUTHOR