INTRODUCTION
CHALLENGING THE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM IN THE
CONTEXT OF AMERICAN POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT
On average, 60 percent of Americans tell
pollsters that they are in favor of third party alternatives.[1] Whereas early polls showed high support for
the two-party system, in the last 30 years Americans have developed more
negative opinions.[2] The Republicans and the Democrats, however,
have been able to maintain their dominance.
No third party has representation in the U.S. Congress or is in
contention for control of any state legislature. As Joan Bryce put it in her dissertation on third party
constraints, "The extent and scope of two-party dominance within the
United States is unique."[3] John Bibby and Sandy Maisel explained that
the two-party system has come as a surprise to observers of American society:
That the United States should have the
oldest and strongest two-party system on the globe is for many, particularly
for foreign observers, a bewildering phenomenon. America appears to have all the ingredients for a vibrant and
enduring multiparty system--an increasingly multiracial and multiethnic
population, substantial regional variation, diverse and conflicting economic
and social interests, a history of sectional conflicts, and substantial
disparities in the distribution of wealth.[4]
To explain the paradox, this study
investigates the institutional and social factors that influence the
organization of American democracy.
Political parties help form the structure of American politics, whether
they are thought of as principled unions of like-minded people or attempts to
gather power by organized groups. Minor
parties play a role in American democracy, but are not a viable part of the
struggle for power in the current American party system.
Giovanni Sartori's classification of the
world's party systems counted the number of parties in a system by determining
how many had coalition potential, the ability to help form a government, and
blackmail potential, the ability to influence policy through defection. With little third party representation in
American legislative or executive offices, only the Democrats and Republicans
meet this criterion. According to Alan
Ware, party systems typically differ from one another based on the penetration
of the parties into society, the parties' ideological differences, the parties'
stances on the regime itself, and the number of parties.[5] The American party system is characterized
by small ideological distance between parties and low levels of party
fragmentation; both parties are liberal, pro-regime organizations that aim to
satisfy the median voter.[6] In any formulation, therefore, America
maintains a two-party system.
Most democratic electorates have split
into at least three parts, even in countries with homogenous populations.[7] In the U.S., there is a great diversity of
interests and opinions but the two-party system serves to mask those
differences. The U.S. sustains a
two-party system even though many groups have attempted to challenge its
hegemony. Advocates of multiparty
democracy are quite disturbed by the dominance: "[The two-party system]
would be indicted under anti-trust laws if it was a market," says Ralph
Nader. "[It is] a deliberate, open conspiracy against democracy that leads
to a poverty of public dialogue."[8] Joseph Hazlett also found the limited
political debate disturbing: "The monopolization of the American political
process has stifled the free-market exchange of ideas and prevented their
expression."[9]
This common critique leaves the two-party
system unstable. Despite its longevity,
the two-party system may not survive the social and political changes of our
era. After Theodore Lowi's 1992
prediction that the two-party system was coming to an end, John Anderson
confidently predicted a similar fate: "In the first quarter of the
twenty-first century, we will see the makings of a multiparty system."[10] According to Alvin Toffler, the
technological changes of our era require a reformulation of the political
system: "The time has come for us to imagine completely novel
alternatives, to discuss, dissent, debate, and design from the ground up the
democratic architecture of tomorrow."[11]
Most discussions of the American party
system have failed to answer Toffler's call.
News coverage and public debate about third parties is characterized by
a remarkable continuity that focuses on the political novelty or the spoiler
role. Instead of following that
example, this study will discuss the potential for parties other than the
Democrats and Republicans to play larger roles in American politics by gaining
representation in state legislatures and Congress and by being competitive in
many state and national elections. It
will show that a transformation to a multiparty system is possible through an
electoral reform movement of varied targets and methods.
Building
a multiparty democracy is certainly not a goal that all would agree to
pursue. This study does not assume that
a belief that more parties are better is an undeniable truth. It acknowledges that some will disagree with
its ends entirely. The study is also
conscious, however, of the millions of Americans who vote for third party
alternatives, the thousands who spend their lives building minor parties, and
the larger group of Americans that, despite enfranchisement, feels left out of
the decision-making process of American government. For them, this project is proof that change is possible and it is
also a guidebook for achieving radical transformation.
This
study, therefore, admittedly has a purpose; it is designed to further a
particular agenda. It does not claim to
be a disinterested study of party systems to answer the normative question of
what structure is best for American government. It does not engage in a comparison of policy outcomes or government
stability as products of different party systems. Instead, it assumes that a multiparty system is desirable and
moves forward in assessing its probability and finding the best means of
achieving the objective.
It is only disinterested, then, in the
same way as Machiavelli's The Prince
is a consideration of the best royal strategies. This study has no interest in a particular method of achieving
change; it can proceed without allegiance to any currently proposed strategy
because its only interest is in achieving the end of multiparty democracy. In the same way that The Prince can be appreciated by those uninterested in the
maintenance of monarchy, this study can be educational even for those who
disagree with its objective. The study
hopes to provide insight into the American electorate, the social changes of
our era, the institutional constraints to third parties, and the means of
achieving political change in the United States that should be useful for any
reader.
The
study examines the conditions under which multiparty democracy would come to
fruition but it is not an exercise in institutional design from the ground
up. It does not merely conclude that
every legislature should be elected proportionally and leave it to others to
figure out how to implement the proposed change. Instead, it attempts to work within the context of American
political development, including the social and institutional constraints to
change. It does accept the need for
reform of American political institutions, often using the Progressive movement
as a model, but it does not ignore the founding heritage. The two-party system is not, after all,
enshrined in the Constitution.
Though the American founders did not
envision any kind of party system, it is fair to say they expected many small
political coalitions. As James Madison
and Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist
51, "In the extended Republic of the United States, and among the
great variety of interests, parties and sects which it embraces, a coalition of
a majority of the whole society could seldom take place on any other principles
other than those of justice and general good."[12] The Founders certainly did not anticipate
two permanent major parties. They set
up an Electoral College, for example, in order narrow down the choices for the
Presidency before the top three candidates were sent to Congress for a final
selection.[13]
After the founding, however, the
two-party system developed quickly.
Scholars generally agree that the U.S. party system has undergone major
realignments at particular strategic points but none has produced a multiparty
system. The first party system began
shortly after the founding in the 1780s.
It featured the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans and lasted
until the rise of Andrew Jackson in the 1820s.
The Democrats and the Whigs made up the second party system, which
lasted until the pre-Civil War elections that saw the Republican Party rise to
prominence. The third party system was
characterized by reconstruction and lasted until the election of 1896. Though competition in the fourth party
system was between the same major parties, the Democrats and the Republicans,
it featured different constituency bases for each party. The fifth party system was created by the
same kind of realignment in the 1930s as a result of the Great Depression and
the New Deal. Some scholars believe the
U.S. is currently in the midst of its sixth party system, one that is less
fixed and more volatile.[14]
Each party system was dominated by two
major parties but other parties have been a constant presence in American
history. Third parties have often
helped cause party realignments. The
Anti-Masonic party influenced the rise of the Whigs, the Liberty and Free Soil
parties set the stage for the Republicans, and the Populist uprising was
responsible for the 1896 transition.[15] Even within party systems, third parties
have had an impact. When Theodore
Roosevelt ran for President in 1912, the Democrats nominated their most
progressive candidate, Woodrow Wilson.
Socialist parties of all kinds, including those that joined in the
Robert LaFollette Progressive campaign of 1924, advocated many of the programs
later enacted as the New Deal.[16]
Early third parties also had some
independent success. The Anti-Masonic Party,
America's first third party, served as New York's second-largest party by 1828;
they were also a major party with control of the governor's office in
Pennsylvania and Vermont.[17] The American "Know Nothing" Party,
which was based on nativist anti-immigration feeling, won many local elections
and claimed up to 50 U.S. House seats.
The 1860 Presidential election in the southern United States was
primarily a competition between two third parties, the Constitutional Union
party and the Southern Democratic Party.
The Southern Democrats defended slavery while the Constitutional Union
Party attempted to maintain peace. The
Liberal Republicans, who broke away from the Republican Party after the Civil
War on issues such as tariffs, reconstruction, and civil service reform, led
successful fusion campaigns in Missouri, Georgia, Tennessee, and
Louisiana. The Greenback Party, which
tried to organize laborers and farmers to campaign for unlimited money
circulation, won fusion gubernatorial elections in Michigan, Maine, and
Massachusetts.[18] The Populists were more successful; they
held up to 18 seats in the House and three seats in the Senate along with
numerous state-level offices.[19]
Whereas third parties of the nineteenth
century were formal political organizations that resembled the major parties,
twentieth century third parties have been short-lived campaigns based around
one major figure.[20] The Bull Moose Party was built by Theodore
Roosevelt's run for the presidency; it was able, however, to re-elect Hiram
Johnson governor of California.
Campaigns by Progressive LaFollette, Socialist Norman Thomas,
Progressive Henry Wallace, and State's Rights Party candidate Strom Thurmond
were even less successful in building third parties. The George Wallace American Independent Party campaign, a
response to the counterculture and mass social movements of the 1960s, was
unable to sustain itself as a permanent competitive party. Eugene McCarthy ran as an independent in
1976 but received only 1 percent of the vote.[21] John Anderson received over five and a half
million votes in 1980 but did not create a sustainable party. Ross Perot's 1992 campaign was the most
successful recent independent campaign but the subsequent history of the Reform
Party is hardly promising for building multiparty democracy. Ralph Nader's Green Party campaign will
likely turn out to be another example of short-term third party prominence
based on a well-known candidate.
Building
on this history, this paper assesses the strengths and weaknesses of past
independent and third party efforts in order to determine what would be
necessary to build a permanent multiparty system. It borrows liberally from the literature on current third parties
but does not confine itself to providing advice for established third
parties. A multiparty system, after
all, would most likely draw at least as much from divisions within the current
parties as from the rise of current minor parties. This study is not a prescription for a particular third party
that could realign the party system.
Instead, it takes a broad approach to
challenging all of the barriers to a multiparty system through a multi-faceted
electoral reform movement. Since the
topic of party systems and political change is connected to virtually every
major issue, this study is an open-ended work that hopes to expand the
discussion rather than furnish all the answers. It does not provide a step-by-step instruction manual for
multiparty system advocates. Instead,
it explores the social basis for multiparty democracy, the constraints for
third parties identified by scholars, and all of the proposed methods for
achieving change.
It moves forward in five sections,
presenting most of the current literature on party systems and American
electoral reform. Chapter Two analyzes
social and ideological groups in the American electorate, showing that
crosscutting cleavages of opinion and interest could form the basis of
multiparty democracy. It reviews voting
behavior studies based on demographics and political beliefs and considers the
social basis of parties in other multiparty systems. Chapter Three attempts to show that major reform in the direction
of multiplicity is possible. It explores
the social changes of the modern era primarily using literature on globalization,
the information age, and postmodernity; it finds historical parallels with the
era that gave rise to the Progressive movement.
After showing the sociological basis for
both multiparty democracy and the reform movement needed to implement it, the study
next explores the barriers to a multiparty system. Chapter Four reviews institutional constraints for minor parties,
including the legislative and presidential electoral system, ballot access
laws, anti-fusion laws, media coverage, and financial constraints. It also assesses the internal failures of
third parties and major party responses.
Chapter Five investigates the potential methods for challenging those
constraints, including legislative action, legal strategies, initiative
campaigns, academic work, and interest group activity. Chapter Six examines the potential of
independent candidates, current third parties, and coalitions to challenge the
two-party system and explains how to build an electoral reform movement. The study concludes with specific
recommendations to multiparty system advocates and an Epilogue that explores
the broader implications of the study even for those unconcerned with creating
a multiparty system.
[1] John F. Bibby and L. Sandy Maisel, Two Parties--or More? The American Party System, Dilemmas in American Politics, ed. L. Sandy Maisel (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1998), 76.
[2] Christian Collet, "The Polls--Trends: Third Parties and the Two-party System," Public Opinion Quarterly 60 (1996): 433.
[3] Joan Bryce, "The Preservation of a Two-Party System in the United States" (M.A.. diss., University of Western Ontario, 1996), 26.
[4] Bibby and Maisel, 53.
[5] Alan Ware, Political Parties and Party Systems (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 149.
[6] Ibid., 182.
[7] A. James Reichley, The Life of the Parties: A History of American Political Parties (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littefield Publishers, 1992), 13.
[8] Ralph Nader, "Keynote." Speech at a conference entitled "Independent Politics in a Global World." Hunter College Auditorium, New York, 7 October 2000.
[9] Joseph M. Hazlett, The Libertarian Party and Other Minor Political Parties in the United States (Jefferson, NC: McFaland & Company, 1992), 113.
[10] John Anderson quoted in Lisa Zagaroli and Michael Steel, "Two-party System May Die in 21st Century," Detroit News, 4 January 2000, sec. A p. 3.
[11] Alvin Toffler and Heidi Toffler, Creating a New Civilization: The Politics of the Third Wave (Atlanta: Turner Publishing, 1995), 90.
[12] James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, "Federalist 51," The Federalist Papers, 8 February 1788. Available: <http://www.mcs.net/~knautzr/fed/fed51.htm>. Accessed 17 April 2001.
[13] Hendrik Hertzberg, "Are There Viable Alternatives to the Status Quo?" Panel Discussion at The Two-Party System and Its Discontents Conference, American University, Washington, DC, 13 May 1999.
[14] Bryce, 10-20.
[15] Bibby and Maisel, 49.
[16] Steven J. Rosenstone, Roy L. Behr, and Edward H. Lazarus, Third Parties in America: Citizen Response to Major Party Failure, 2d ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), 91.
[17] J. David Gillespie, Politics at the Periphery: Third Parties in Two-Party America (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1993), 49.
[18] Ibid., 54.
[19] Gene Clanton, Congressional Populism and the Crisis of the 1890s (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1998), 181.
[20] Rosenstone et al., 11.
[21] Gillespie, 106.