Dump the Two Party System?

The recent demise of the Reform party (and let's face it, folks: It's dead) is a good example. Third parties arise and gather a following, but it doesn't translate into any representation in Congress, and eventually, powerless and futile, they fall apart. It used to be that one or another of the major parties would co-opt the policies of a vital third-party movement, and thus absorb rather than just simply shut out the third party, but in the case of Reform, the anti-Nafta protectionist stance resulted in no influence whatever with either party. Debt reduction? Everyone wanted debt reduction, save for the fat cats making a fortune off of US indebtedness. Reform is dying with no footprints on the political landscape to mark its passing.

And so the two parties control the show. Contrary to what the Libertarians claim, there ARE differences-America is, and remains, in the midst of a class and religious struggle, and the party makeup largely reflects this. But if one is the party of privilege and false piety, the other is sort of an amorphous, bland, risk-free populism that carefully avoids promoting worker's rights and addressing the role of shamans in a secular democracy.

And without a strong public outcry, it isn't going to change any time soon. Few lawmakers are going to support anything that diminishes the power of their own party. You can't even sneer at them for it, not honestly. If you were a Republican or Democratic public office holder, you wouldn't want to attenuate the power of the party, and thus put your own position in jeopardy.

There is a way that can make third party representation in Congress more likely that wouldn't seriously affect the original intent of the Constitution as regards representation by state and population. It would serve to make elections more interesting, and create a more parliamentary form of Congress that would give third parties at least some influence over legislation.

It would require a Constitutional Amendment, since in its present form, there is no way the Constitution can include my proposal. But remember I said that a big public outcry would be needed to change anything? It would have to be a public outcry of the sort that leads to Constitutional amendments-something so loud and so clear that no politician could ignore it and hope to stay in office.

Here is a rough version of the language of the Amendment that I propose:

Former House Speaker Sam Rayburn once said that "all politics is local", and for the House, that's been a true statement. Most party machines are built, not around a coalition of ideas, but around the basic tenet that you take care of your constituents and get reelected, and keep the ideology in the House where it belongs. I used to live in a fairly liberal district in Southern California, where the Congressman was a moderate Republican. He was very, very good at seeing to it that the needs of the people he represented were met, and worked hard to bring business and revenues to the district. The result was that each election, he would get solid support, not just from area Republicans, but a significant number of the area Democrats, the putative majority party in the district. He "danced with them whut brung him", and everyone, by and large, was happy. Then one year, a rich empty suit ran against him, dumping millions and millions of his own money in the race, and by a few percentage points, unseated him. The replacement turned out to be an utter incompetent, and so naturally, decided after two years of ignoring his irate constituents, that he was ready for the "show"-the Senate. So he hared off after higher office, and the district elected a Democrat who COULD do the job, and has been a Democratic seat ever since. Most Congressional Districts have similar types of stories in their histories.

It's a very cozy relationship, one that by and large works well enough. But like all cozy setups that are beneficially inept, it's ill-prepared to meet challenges, which of course always arise. And in the past century, it has out-and-out stultified. Not since 1953 has there been more than one single third-party or independent member of the House (there were two then) and you have to go back to the early days of deep crisis in the early thirties to find as many as ten.

Local interests are greatly diminished in national "At-Large" races. Voters aren't going to be thinking in terms of how the candidate helped Uncle Ernie get his VA benefits, or won that highway contract, but rather in terms of how the candidate feels about the Issues.

A list of names would tell you nothing of a candidate's ideology, and with hundreds or even thousands running for those top 200 positions, the voters wouldn't possibly be able to make meaningful choices. Thus, candidates would have to define themselves succinctly to the voters by party label. And the party labels would have to be meaningful; you wouldn't have representatives of a liberal party decrying civil rights, or a member of the conservative party espousing more public-works programs.

Now, unless the amendment happened to be ratified during truly turbulent times, I would expect the first crop of "new" members to be more Republicans and Democrats. Oh, there would be a handful of Greens and Libertarians and Reform, possibly even a member from Natural Law or the Democratic Socialists, but the majority of the new people would be members of the party.

What would the point of the Amendment be if it resulted in only more Democrats and Republicans?

As voters became more accustomed to the new set up, and became used to seeing Congressional Representatives with something other than the familiar "R" or "D" after their name, they would be more inclined to vote for someone who reflected their opinions, rather than just their local interests. With 200 seats open, it would be possible for representatives to get elected to Congress with only 5,000 votes nationwide.

And if things were tranquil to begin with, they wouldn't stay that way for the simple reason that they never do. National emergencies crop up, new ideas appear, movements are formed.

The Third Party has been running candidates for President for 200 years. Not since 1860, has a third party succeeded in electing a President. They've run candidates for Congress, and not since the Dixiecrats in 1948 have they made any significant inroads there. It's worth noting that the three largest third parties of the past 10 year, Reform, Libertarian and Green, have never elected a Representative. These parties are doomed to be killed by their own futility, and the system is so ossified that, as mentioned, the major parties don't even feel obliged to preempt the positions of those "outside looking in".

However, this new system will strike new balances. Had it been in place in 1996, when Perot and Reform still had some strength, and with Nader running for the Greens and Browne for the Libertarians, it's entirely possible that there might have been 40 or 50 Reform members in Congress, 10-15 Greens, and a dozen Libertarians. And had the Democrats and Republicans split the remaining seats, with a slight edge to the Democrats, then those third parties would have had some real leverage in helping to determine legislation.

For those who note that these parties consisted mostly of just their Presidential candidates and not much else, this proposal would encourage formation of a party structure geared to Congressional elections. As it now stands, third party members have to run in the Districts, most of which have incumbents, and few of which are going to give a plurality of their votes to an unknown. Under the new system, Third Parties wouldn't have to win pluralities of votes in the Districts-a nearly impossible task. Instead, they would merely need to finish in the top 200 of the national plebiscite. So rather than just one "personality" running for President, you would have parties with discernable ideologies springing up and developing grass roots support.

That changes everything. As the voters become accustomed to the new voting set up, you might have a voter thinking like this: "I'm going to vote for Joe Blow. He's been my congressman for 18 years, and he's on the plum committees, and might be Speaker if his party wins the House. He takes care of business, he brings home the bacon. But I think his votes on the environment are crap, so I'm going to vote for one of the Greens in the at-large box". The voter ends up with Joe Blow to take care of his interests, and has a good chance of seeing a Green elected to address his philosophical concerns. A candidate might only need a few thousand votes to make the top 200.

Why can't Joe Blow run for both District and At-Large seats? Answer: he can, but he'll have to give up one if elected to both. The Constitution specifically forbids holding two Federal elected offices at once.

What criteria would you need to run for an At-large seat? As it stands, Congress can set some of the standards, but essentially, the only requirements in the Constitution are that the person be 25 years of age, and must have been an American for at least seven years. The clause requiring the member to be a resident of the state electing that member wouldn't apply, because at-large Members would represent no particular state or district. It would require nothing more than filing with the FEC.

Won't that mean we get a load of crackpot candidates? We have crackpots now, legitimized by nothing more than party affiliation. Nor is that anything new. Mark Twain once remarked, "Congress has adjourned, and many a village is getting its idiot back". Frankly, I think the country can survive a few crackpots, and some of these guys might get into office and show that they aren't crackpots at all, but simply have good, fresh ideas.

What about the Senate? When I first thought of this, I had in mind adding 50 "At-Large" seats to the Senate. I even had it figured that they would be elected in classes of three, one class each two years for six year terms, just like District Senators. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that it wasn't such a good idea. For one thing, the Constitution guarantees equal representation to each state, and at-large voting would disturb that. For another, this proposal, designed specifically to add volatility to the House, would do the same to the Senate, and that probably isn't a good idea. The House has a well-deserved reputation for being impetuous, hasty, and even a bit flaky, and the Senate is seen as the anchor. Many a really stupid idea has come out of the House, only to die in the Senate, were calmer heads (usually) prevail. I finally concluded that the best thing I could do with the Senate is leave it the hell alone.

Do you really expect the Democrats and Republicans to go for such a thing? It's very unlikely. But if enough people press for the idea-the type of groundswell that leads to Constitutional Amendments, then they will eventually have to acknowledge it.

If it can't begin with Congress, where can it begin? It can begin with the states. State governments have considerably more discretionary power over their exact form than does the Federal government. All the constitution demands is that they provide "a republican form of government". That leaves the door open for some experimentation. The states are supposed to be the experimental laboratories of Democracy, but in fact, 49 states are closely modeled after the Federal legislature, with one western state that has a unicameral legislative branch. All the rest have assemblies and senates.

If one state were to try the combination combining the best features of American tripartite government and British-style parliament, and it were to prove a better form of government, other states would follow. And when enough states had followed, the people would be ready to support a Constitutional amendment.

And then the door, for the first time in many years, would be open to let viewpoints other than a bland cross section of two philosophical tents into government, and more voices would be heard.