On Democracy & The Two Party System
The starting point for this prompt was a recurring argument that came up in conversations about the upcoming US election: the ‘lesser of two evils’ argument. The position is about strategic voting, that, despite ideological disagreement, one is obligated to vote for the candidate who will cause less harm to the country – NOT a third party candidate who might better represent one’s political beliefs, because the third party candidate is seen as not having a chance at winning office.
Whether one sees this as problematic or not is likely dependent on their view of the two party system (duopoly). So, we must begin this debate by answering the following question: Is a two-party system good for democracy?
Assuming that what is good for democracy is an electoral system that facilitates the will of the people, where policy is made from the ground up, from open communal discourse on issues to the implementation of policy that reflects these communally arbitrated solutions.
Here are some arguments against the two-party system:
A wide range of political views is funneled into two categories, which degrades the political agency of the people
Political partisanship is increased as party-line voting polarizes the public (alliteration).
Perpetuates corporate influence …
Restricts meaningful elections by restricting the range of choices for voters
There are plenty of arguments for the two party system. The dominant cultural assumption is that the duopoly is good (“it exists, therefore it is real, therefore it is rational”). The backdrop of this dialectic is a world that quietly yet authoritatively posits its structures as Good, rational, and natural. The antithesis already exists and the field is stacked. As such, it is not necessary include specific arguments for it.
To return to the idea of the “lesser of two evils”: this argument presupposes the possibility of there being only two choices. In this way, it is actually an argument for the two party system. Hidden ideology aside, we must still answer the question:
“Why should you vote for a candidate that has no chance of winning?”
Does this question still presuppose the duopoly?
The objective reality stands; third-party candidates, due to the entrenched dominance of the two main parties, are less likely to win the current election cycle. However, it seems like the pathway towards legitimate political choice involves first breaking the false binary so prevalent in public consciousness. To this end, can voting for a third party candidate de-reify the public’s view of their options?
The argument for strategic voting becomes even more perplexing when you learn that a sizable part of the American population (39%) expresses a desire for more political parties.
This is the crux of the debate, and hopefully the nexus for a broader conversation beyond American politics. Even though a large portion of the public wants more political parties, their real range of options is obscured by the reified view that they must compromise their beliefs and vote between one of the two parties. Reification is originally a Marxist term that can be loosely defined as the treatment of a social, historical process as static, objective, and existing outside the influence of human beings. It is an ossified perspective that treats the structures of the world as pre-set.
Is the ‘lesser of two evils argument’ predicated on a logic of reification? If people truly want more political options, what is preventing them from voting independent? What steps must be taken to reveal to people their true agency? In other words, how do we penetrate the illusion of false choice, whether in regard to our continued participation in a political, economic, or social system that presents itself as natural and objective?