The Constitution doesn’t mention political parties at all. Several of the founders thought parties were dangerous and should be avoided. John Adams declared a two-party arrangement “the worst calamity” that could befall America. Elsewhere on this site, politics is described as the dirty, stupid, and selfish element of public affairs. At the very least, the two-party system that exists in the US is neither necessary nor inevitable. American citizens should ponder whether the system we have is worth keeping.

Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses. That bit of political wisdom ought to stay at the heart of American affairs. And “mandate” requires some way of measuring what the masses want. And that means elections. And elections usually involve the enthusiastic efforts of citizens. There are four distict ways that parties can work within a republic or other governing system. There can be no parties, many parties, two parties, or one party. these options are discussed below in an American contexct. At the end of this article, other nations’ electoral methods are considered.

 

No Parties

Political organization aren’t necessary to hold elections. George Washington was elected the first president of the US without any political affiliation. He won because he had a personal reputation as a great administrator and leader. The people of the 13 states knew him and he was the man they wanted. Washington was one of a kind, however. There hasn’t been a national election since when a single candidate owned the heart of the nation as he did.

If no political parties existed in the US, candidates for office would have to run on their name rather than their party affiliation. Voters would have to study the candidates’ opinions and positions. They couldn’t just vote for whoever the party they always vote for puts up for the office. Instead of messy primary elections followed by a simple choices between two candidates, America’s president election would be messy from start to finish. It would almost certainly be more likely to result in the most popular candidate.

If no political parties existed, election day polling sites would have to be staffed by volunteers inspired by community service rather than partisan loyalty.

If no political parties existed, every legislator, once in office, would be free to consider whether to support each legislative bill. He or she would not be pressured to support bills proposed by other members of their party and oppose bills sponsored by members of the other party. They could vote according to the merits of the bill – and whether it would benefit the people in their home district. It would be harder for any piece of legislation to pass through the legislature.

Having no political parties would require extra work on everybody’s part. Extra work for voters, and extra work for elected officials. It would almost certainly be better than the current system. But it would work better only if people could be persuaded to make the effort necessary.

 

Many Parties

America already has many political parties. Most states have, in addition to the Republican and Democratic parties, one or more other parties that are organized, staffed, funded, and capable of participating in elections. Here is a list of parties that are active in each of the states. Here is another list.

But those other parties are inevitably small and unimportant. Across the country there are a tiny number of third-party office holders. At the time this essay is being written, two US Senators claim to be Independent and one member of the House of Representatives says he is Libertarian. All the rest of them are Republican or Democrat. At the state and local level, there are hundreds of third-party elected officials. But nowhere does a third party control any council or legislature over the two main parties.

There are a couple of reasons why small political parties stay small in America. One is good; the other is bad. The good reason small political parties stay small is that whenever an idea begins to get popular, one or both of the major parties takes the idea and makes it part of their program. The National Woman’s Party was formed in 1912 — years before either major political party supported votes for women. The NWP forced the other parties and the rest of the country to consider the issue. By 1918, the president asked Congress to adopt votes for women. By 1920, votes for women became the law of the land. The NWP accomplished its main goal without winning elections.

The bad reason small parties stay small is the winner-take-all system of elections America uses for most elected positions. In most elections, there is only one winner. The winner gets 100% of the power even if he or she gets only 51% of the votes. The loser gets nothing despite having the support of as much as 49% of the voters. That is not a representative according to the true sentiments of the voting public. There are alternatives to winner-take-all that would be fairer and more democratic. Proportional representation is one possibility that is gaining support.

 

Two Parties

America’s “two-party system” is not mandated by the Constitution or anywhere else. It simply has been allowed to happen. The “two-party system” is an example of America’s unwritten little-c constitution taking control of affairs when the more famous big-C Constitution is silent. 

 

One Party

A one-party state is probably the worst possibility. Americans are often told that the “right to vote” is a great privilege, and that they should be grateful they don’t live in Russia or North Korea. As a matter of fact, people in those countries also vote. For them, voting is a choice between voting for the ruling regime or getting punished. In n a one-party state, voting is meant to express support for the ruling regime, and participation is always very high. One-party states sometime criticize the US for its low voter turnout.

 

Political Parties Around the World

 Political systems around the world change pretty frequently and governments are overthrown and nations become more or less free and democratic. That means any listing or ranking or rating of other nations’ governments is bound to fall out of date pretty quickly. Nevertheless, there is a wealth of evidence from other nations about what is possible. The details that follow are taken from the CIA database of other nations, and from Wikipedia.

 

Most developed and affluent nations have many parties

A partial list of lsuccessful countries with many strong and influential political parties include: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Tanzania, and the United Kingdom.

Having many political parties doesn’t guarantee freedom or good government, however. Apart from the free and affluent nations listed above, many-party nations also includes Afghanistan, Hungary, the Philippines, Poland, and Turkey.

 

Only a few nations maintain a two-party system

The US is the only major nation in the world with a clear two-party system based on winner-take-all elections. Other nations with two-party systems include Anguilla, the Bahamas, Belize, Burma, Chad, Gabon, Jamaica, and Zimbabwe.

 

 One-party states tend to be authoritatian and anti-democratic

Brunei and Saudi Arabia are ruled by absolute monarchies., China and Vietnam are ruled by strong Communist Party organizations. North Korea is run by a cult of personality. The Vatican City is governed by the Catholic Church.

 

States with no political parties

As described above, a system with no political parties would give the voters no shortcuts for deciding how to vote. It can work well, but it is no surprise that no-party systems exist only in small communities such as isaolated, island nations around the world. Examples include Aldernay (small autonomous islands in the English Channel between England and France), Bahrain, the Falkland Islands, Guernsey, Nieu (autonomous islands near new Zealand), Pitcairn Islands, and Tuvalu. In the United Arab Emirates, political parties are illegal.

The US shouldn’t take its cues from other nations. “They do it that way in Norway or in South Korea” should never be reason enough for Americans to adopt a practice. Americans should always choose what is best for America.

But the experiences of other nations does help our deliberations. If something (e.g., multi-party systems) works fine in other countries, we need to stop saying “That can’t work.” If a practice is rare elsewhre in the world (e.g., two-party, winner-take-all elections) we need to stop saying “It has to be that way.”

As evidence builds that America’s two political parties are failing at their task, citizens ought to consider what can be done to improve the process. It could be that patience alone with solve our ills, and that the next election will sweep out the bad and bring in the good. But it could also be the case that the process itself doesn’t work, and that further reliance on a broken system is unpatriotic.