Problem with Two Party system: Us vs. Them

The two-party system is a monopoly.

There is a reason we break up business monopolies: They are harmful to innovation and the free-market system. They are islands of self-governance and because they have no competition, they can make their own rules.

I can hear you saying “But the two-party system can’t be a monopoly…it’s in the name ‘two party’ after all!”

Time for clarity: I am not forwarding a conspiracy theory. I am not saying that the two parties are in collusion. I’m not saying it is outside the realm of possibility, but I believe in people. I believe, in spite of everything, that most people are actually trying to do what they think is best for the world, for their community, for their tribe, for their family, and — yes, of course — for themselves. I think each party is really trying to do what they think is best.

But, I also believe that it is a lot easier for ordinary folks to follow a party line than to do independent research on every candidate. I think the two party system makes it very easy to take complex issues and turn them into binary decisions; 0 or 1.

And I think that is dangerous.

It is dangerous for us as individuals: It keeps us from thinking too deeply, from finding real solutions to big problems, it stifles innovation, it often threatens freedoms. It is dangerous for our system, it makes it precarious. There is a good reason most things in government are split into three, it creates a framework for balance.

So, how do we fix it? The two-party system is so engrained it seems impossible to change. The solution is both very simple, and surprisingly difficult.

Simple because all we need to do is outlaw the two-party system in the constitution and create a framework for the transition and for rebalancing if two parties should come to prominence again.

To transition is easy enough: The democratic party and the republican party would be disbanded. They would cease to exist. They would be replaced with 5 (five) new parties that would form along lines of mutual agreement on issues. Likely, a few of the existing ‘third-parties’ would step in and become the new parties.

Why five parties, you ask? Three is too few. It would be too easy to simply reform the GOP and the Democrats, with a stray third-party. By breaking into five parties, it ensures both a good distribution of the issues, and overlap on the issues. Voters would find a few parties they agree with on specific issues that are most important to them, then choose between candidates based on their particular stances (and all the other reasons we chose one person above another.)

It would mean that parties would have to form coalitions with each other party to accomplish specific goals. We would see fewer ‘close’ votes with just a few crossing sides to make a difference. It would be easier for the people to guide the most important issues through our votes.

This sounds easy enough, I know. So now you are wondering why I said it be surprisingly difficult.

The difficult part isn’t doing it, it is getting it done. The politicians we have, on both sides, are invested in this system. They are impowered by it. They have everything to gain by keeping the existing ‘us vs. them’ system in place, and everything to lose by changing it.

But this is important, folks. We can look around and see where the current system has gotten us. Not because of this one person or that specific senator, but because the SYSTEM ITSELF IS THE PROBLEM.

We know we can change things. We know that if we demand the change, demand it constantly, demand it vocally, and demand it together — we can make change happen. Nobody loses by this change except the people in power, and even they won’t lose if they truly have the support of their constinutates. If they are good at what they do and represent their people, they will be empowered by the new system and will continue to serve, but they will be able to serve better, with a stronger mandate and a simpler, more fair system to support them.

Please, share this post. Share this idea. Share this: #5PartiesUSA

Opinions of AmarA: And artist existing & creating fully & truthfully. “Art is not living. It is the use of living.” Clara Schumann