AT ISSUE: Today is Super Tuesday, and 24 states will hold primary elections that could secure nominations for Republican and Democratic presidential candidates. Is this two-party system effective or does it create a political monopoly?
Step back inside the box
Mohammad Ahmad
In an era where the Indie culture is considered chic, one is unlikely to find admirers of any choices the system gives. This is evidenced by Jessie Ventura’s speech during his visit to our university as campaign manager of the not-so-great Kinky Friedman. He angrily noted that we had one more choice than communists. He even lampooned our electoral system, calling it a choice between Coca Cola and Pepsi.
Yet he was doing exactly what mainstream politicians do – manipulating the crowd using rhetoric, bashing the system and using the people’s frustrations to fulfill their political ambition. Ironically, that implication was somehow lost amidst the applause his speech solicited.
I share the impatient desire to seek rapid change, but it may be a little arrogant for 20-somethings to bash a 200-year-old system that has provided us remarkable stability and prosperity. After all, no other democratic system provides this level of balance while being open to gradual change. In our system, the median voter is able to effectively cut out political extremists such as Ayatollahs, communists, La Rouchites, the Ron Pauls and the Dennis Kucinichs. It’s hard not to appreciate that.
Of course we can find criticisms of the two-party system aplenty in our generation’s culture. But is it possible that in our valiant effort to be non-conformist ideological antagonists, we have been swept up in a new kind of sea of conformity? For a change, let’s give credit to our country and all that it has given us.
Two-party system is failed democracy
Blake Gilson
The two-party system provides the illusion of effective representation. In reality there is only one party: the political elite.
The policies that should serve as the criteria on which candidates are chosen are not only ignored but are becoming completely irrelevant. What matters is the R or the D, the 20-second sound bite or the hollow, symbolic stance on abortion. The debates that led up to today have shown how few differences the front-runners have. This is to be expected in a two-party system where each party attempts to borrow from the other’s platform.
You might think that when one party is in power we can use the two-party system to have a mini-revolution. Such events do happen. When the Democrats took back all of Congress many Americans held their breath and waited for the promised change. If you did hold your breath you would have given up by now or have died. The war goes on and the power of the executive still expands.
Sound policy or personal intelligence is in no way an attribute to making it to the top of one of the parties. Campaign coverage matters more. Do we choose our politicians or are they chosen for us while we just forward our votes?
The buzz surrounding this election reminds me of Alexis de Tocqueville’s critique of democracy: that through the mixing of popular sovereignty with the power of governance, "the people shake off their state of dependence just long enough to select their master and then relapse into it again."
Electoral College needs to go
Jonah B. Sanders
It is true the two-party system has disadvantages, but before we go knocking it, how many people can talk intelligently about any other type of political system? It seems to me, we can only discuss this in comparison to other systems. What would be a better solution?
The current two parties are often paradoxically accused of being either too much alike or too polarized on issues. Republicans and Democrats are accused of marginalizing third parties, having unconventional ideas and of being a tyrannical majority. But since there is no constitutional provision for political parties I can only at best assume they arise naturally out of a struggle for power and provide in some ways an additional check and balance.
Maybe this is a reflection of how we as humans approach problems – framing issues in opposites, ignoring the unfamiliar and being slow to change. Maybe we need to be reminded that our government is a republic and not a true democracy.
If I could change one thing in our system right now, I would get rid of the Electoral College. It is an antiquated system that distrusts the voting public. The problems in our government stem not from having a two-party system, but from a lack of voter education and involvement for consensus-driven politics.
It should be mandatory to vote and people should have incentive, and if you’re not convinced, see Duverger’s law, which states that even pluralist systems are in the guise of a two-party system.
