Two-Party Systems Work Best – IF . . .
This section describes why TWO-party systems – if run properly, with the minority party able and willing to serve as “the loyal opposition” (i.e., loyal to the nation, but remaining opposed to the majority party) – offer the best option for any “democratic republic” (which is what America was created and intended to be, under our Constitution).
The next page describes why ONE-party systems (such as communist countries, military dictatorships, etc.) do not work well (or, at least, would not be well-suited for any country with a history and tradition of freedom, liberty, and individual rights . . . such as America).
The page after that describes why THIRD parties consistently create the exact OPPOSITE of what they want. The basic reason – for anyone who doesn’t want to have to read an entire page to learn a simple and obvious truth – is that any THIRD party will always and inevitably suction most of its support away from whichever major party it is closer to; and, as a direct result, it will split the vote with the party it is closer to, in ways which give an election to the OTHER party. As two quick examples: (1) when Ross Perot entered the 1992 election, as a 3rd‑party conservative, he split the votes with the Republican (George Bush Sr.), which let the Democrat-liberal (Bill Clinton) win the Presidency, even though Clinton got only 43% of the vote; and, (2) when Ralph Nader entered the 2000 election as a third‑party liberal environmentalist, he pulled enough votes away from Democrat Al Gore, to allow George W. Bush (Junior) to win the election, and then begin doing the exact opposite of what Nader’s followers wanted.
Having stated the above, we anticipate a MAJOR objection; so, here is the rest of our basic statement:
The Two-Party Party is NOT claiming or arguing that two-party systems always work fine, and therefore, everyone should support them. Instead, our belief is pretty much the opposite: America’s current version of the two-party system has become so badly bent, damaged, and dysfunctional, that it needs to be fixed, somehow, or else it will lead our nation into not just one but numerous major disasters.
Our claim, therefore, is that the pathway toward recovery is to approach things like a classic, competent problem-solver . . . which means, try to: (i) figure out what enabled things to work well, during those times when they did work well; (ii) figure out which changes made things worse; and, (iii) re-build some good things, and then use those to replace some of the bad things.
The Two-Party Party asserts that one of the most clear and obvious things that has gone wrong, is this: far too many moderates, centrists, problem-solvers, and people of good will and good sense have been driven out of and away from politics, by extremists, radicals, fanatics, and “culture warriors” at both ends of the spectrum. Radical right-wingers have figured out how to dominate the Republican Party, by being so loud, so insistent, so angry, and so abusive, that they create `last man standing’ battles, during the primary season, which repel and drive away any moderates and centrists. And, although that particular problem is less severe on the Democratic side, it does indeed happen, in at least some states, with similar results. As a result, in too many elections, Republican at the `right-wing’ end of the political spectrum, and Democrats in the `left wing’ end of the political spectrum, have established outsized control over the process of choosing nominees. Then, in the general election, moderate voters must choose between those two candidates, even though they do not like either one.
Since that is a reasonable and valid way of analyzing and diagnosing the problem, the `Methods’ section, in this website, proposes a specific and practical series of steps that moderates can use – IF we can get organized, and begin using those steps – to push back against radicals and extremists, and to re-build and re-establish the roles of moderates, centrists, and respectable problem-solvers, not just to vote in the general elections, but also to have a powerful voice in telling BOTH major parties:
“BOTH of you two parties need to stop nominating extremists, fringe-dwellers, show-ponies, camera-whores, and “culture warriors” who only know how to argue, preen, parade, obstruct, and send out fund-raising appeals. Instead, you need to begin choosing nominees who are decent, hard-working, respectful and respectable people who have led good lives and raised good kids; nominees who will actually solve problems, instead of cynically milking and exploiting anger and hatred, to keep it boiling hot; nominees who will talk, bargain, and negotiate in good faith, even with people from the other party; and, nominees who will recognize that their first and foremost duty is not to their party, but to this entire nation, and to the taxpayers, citizens, and voters who pay their salaries, and hold this nation together. As in any bell curve, the people who form the large hump in the middle of the curve far outnumber the radicals and extremists who are out on the far ends of that curve. The first party which will learn to once again recognize and respect that fact, and which will begin choosing nominees who truly appeal to the center, will be the one that starts winning the most elections. Now, rather than just waiting, passively, while we wish you would come to your senses, we – as citizens, taxpayers, and voters – are going to start taking actions to kick-start that process.”