Since last year’s election season, partisanship has become our new national pastime. While not every member of the electorate officially belongs to a party, nearly every voter casts their support to either the Republicans or the Democrats, breeding the rivalry that plagues today’s political atmosphere and eliminating possibilities for common ground.
We have only two powerful parties because we have a ‘first-to-pass-the-post’ election system, as opposed to proportional representation. As laid out in a theory called Duverger’s Law, a system like ours, where there is no proportional power-sharing but a winner-takes-all method to electing government, will tend to gravitate towards two large, opposing blocs of voters.
The problem with a two-party system is just that: there’s only two parties, and thus only two options. Fans of free-market capitalism are lumped together with diehard opponents of gay marriage on the right, while supporters of the Democrats’ proposed universal health care plan wind up alongside people whose one vaguely health care-related concern involves marijuana. Sometimes, a person is lucky enough to have all their social and economic viewpoints neatly lined up on the same side of the political divide, but more often, people will find themselves torn between conflicting instincts when it comes time to pull the lever. The unsettling reality of the two-party system is that most voters members are forced to compromise some of their values.
The Republican Party has been commandeered by a cadre of extreme right-wing radio hosts and television personalities who appeal to the paranoia of their viewership with a specialized blend of racism, misinformation and fear-mongering. In the summer of 2009, Republicans (alongside others) with honest questions about the pending universal health care plan were drowned out by those in their own party who, with stunts like comparing the Obama administration to the Third Reich and showing up at already tense protests with firearms in tow, distracted the nation from rational debate.
Political polarization is highly evident in the media, one place where, in an ideal and impossible world, partisanship would be entirely absent. Anchors like Edward R. Murrow were once noted for their integrity and lack of bias, while the late Walter Cronkite was famously voted “the most trusted man in America.” A recent poll sponsored by Time awarded this title to Jon Stewart, who once defended his easygoing approach to objectivity by pointing out that his show follows the time slot reserved for “puppets making crank phone calls.” There is a news channel for inhabitants of every spot on the political spectrum: the right wing watches FOX, the left wing watches MSNBC.
In countries with three or more influential parties, such as France or Germany, voters are not as forced to compromise their values to fit a wide-ranging political platform, and the existence of non-permanent coalitions between factions encourages greater cooperation. Each party has an incentive towards uniting with one or more others to gain a majority instead of fighting it out tooth and nail in the legislature and on cable news.
Despite its tendency towards polarization, the two-party system does have some advantages. One of Italy’s many problems is the speed with which their multiparty coalitions change. A two-party system is inherently more stable than a multiparty system, even if it forces voters to make uncomfortable choices. In the United States, the biggest contribution a third party has ever made is to spoil an election for one of the big two; clearly, the two-party system is here to stay in the United States. But next time you cast your vote, you might not like the reason the guy in booth next to you is voting the same way.
Casey Petroff is a freshman in the School of International Service and a moderate liberal columnist for The Eagle. You can reach her at edpage @theeagleonline.com.
