Editor’s note: This commentary is by Howard Fairman, of Putney, a native Vermonter who likes to study official public documents, presentations and acts, and share his findings with fellow grassroots Vermonters.
[B]ernie is in the right place at the right time to lead an upgrade of our hidebound two-party national government to an innovative three- or four-party national government.
Third and fourth political parties are common worldwide.
Nationally or regionally competitive, they each stand up for their beliefs and proposals instead of paying lip service to the polite fiction of two-party “big tents.”
Competing since 1854, Democratic and Republican parties have tried to change with their times by homogenizing their intramural differences instead of letting voters choose.
What if no party among three (or four) won a majority in the House or Senate?
The most numerous party would cooperate with the party holding the balance of power to attain a governing majority, harmonizing their beliefs and proposals in our national interest.
Duverger’s law, actually an observation, notes that single-member electoral districts won by pluralities tend to favor two-party systems, such as ours.
Canada is a counterexample: Single-member federal “ridings” won by pluralities favor a multiparty system.
The Bloc Québécois (10 seats), Conservative (97), Green (one), Liberal (182) and New Democratic (44) parties currently hold seats in the 338-seat House of Commons (two independent; two vacant).
When no party won a Commons majority, Canada had 13 minority governments since confederation in 1867, including three from 2004 to 2011 (Liberal: 2004-2006; Conservative: 2006-2008, 2008-2011). Various minority parties held the balance of power.
Multiparty presidential elections here, however, could be decided by the House of Representatives.
This, not Duverger’s law, is why we stick to two parties.
The Electoral College should be replaced via constitutional amendment by:
• fortnightly regional presidential primaries in order decided by drawing lots before each presidential-electoral cycle;
• a national presidential election, decided by a runoff election among the top two nominees if no nominee won a national majority.
While freeing Americans to elect more than two political parties is in our national interest, this challenges our entire history since Federalists and Antifederalists debated during 1787-1788 ratification of America’s new national constitution.
Democratic and Republican parties will be challenged to cede power in our national interest instead of continuing to pretend that they can always represent all Americans everywhere in our vast and diverse nation.
Democrats’ and Republicans’ naturally persistent factions are not in our national interest, as a political novice demonstrated by exploiting them to win the nomination and the presidency.
