That term, "two party system," is a misnomer, of course. There is no constitutional mandate for the number of factions required to make national decisions but in this country we practice the politics of polarity. We have long been conditioned to believe that there are two sides to every issue. That sounds fair on the surface of it and a system of governance that has such a belief at its core might easily be thought to be a good one.

It has, however, been my observation that there are an unlimited number of sides to any story and to say that there are only two is to dismiss quite a number of points of view and reduce decision making to game theory considerations. That we have done so has given us a political environment that provides us with bad choices.

The process is inevitable

Any controversy will produce extremes of opinion. With only two political parties it stands to reason that each extreme will gravitate towards a different party. So the parties over time become collections of extreme opinions, not all of them necessarily consistent with each other. Participating in decision making means joining or at least working with a major party which in turn means giving support, at least nominally, to the collection of extremes. The greater the support the more successful the participant.

Consequently, rather than electing the candidate whose values most closely reflect those of the average American we pick from one of two campaigners who have made mutual aid alliances that they hope will gain them decisive numbers of followers.

The selections are flawed by the process and the flaws are catalyzed by the media and by expectations generated by past experiences. Unfortunately the root of the problem is buried deeply in our culture.

We as a nation expect to be given two major candidates on Election Day. We know that any number of people may enter and run but we expect that only two will be serious contenders. When a third nominee becomes prominent he or she is tainted, thought of as a troublemaker, someone who skews the vote and upsets what the supposed "real" result should be.

For example, Ralph Nader, a contender in a recent past election, was and is considered a "spoiler," someone who drew votes from the liberal candidate, the one considered closest in general appeal to Nader. His experience is the perfect example of the politics of polarity. He was a candidate with ideas of his own who might have had an original approach to leadership, yet

• 1
• 2
• next page >>

---

Add your voice

Know something about Commentary: Why a two-party system limits US politics?
We want to hear your view. Write now!