I’m amazed I hadn’t considered this before. If every group is represented, every group remains in the system, and the dominant majority—supported by an ever-growing collection of smaller minorities—can continue indefinitely.
Additionally, when my ballot paper is crowded with candidates, unless I research and deliberately number every preference myself, the eventual flow of preferences feels opaque to most voters, despite the rules being publicly available.
When the connection between the vote cast and the final outcome becomes increasingly difficult to follow, it’s easy to see why many ordinary voters lose trust and confidence in the democratic process.
On the plus side you raised points I have never really thought about. It is actually your originality that led to me writing this, my first substack response. It is so nice to stumble on great original thinking supported by wonderful writing.
Unfortunately, while I find myself very drawn to your support for the two party system I can’t get past the fact you seem to wilfully ignore the overwhelming evidence that neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party come close to representing the interests of the majority of Americans. Thomas Piketty was right when he pointed out that American politics has become a struggle to see which group of elites is in power. The Brahmin Left or the Merchant Right that is currently in power.
This battle is vicious and as it has become absurdly, nakedly, partisan and powerfully driven by corporate and special interest money Americans increasingly identify as Independents or worse, are not voting at all. The correct solution is for both parties to realize they have to abandon their extreme partisan beliefs and replace their elites with Americans who aren’t privileged enough to have the time or resources to make their voices heard.
If the only way to get these desperately needed changes implemented is to not vote or vote for a third party then a major third Party and probably a fourth, fifth, and even sixth Party are inevitable as is Proportional Voting. I would argue they will each have their own elite and the spreading of power will make America a better place to live if they don’t currently belong to the two existing elites.
Firstly, thanks for genuinely engaging in the article, and for the thoughtful response. Secondly, I think you're correct, there is a significant blind spot in my argument with regards to the US, and there is something vastly different about the US to the other countries I named (including my own, Australia).
Most of the other nations I named require all party donations to be disclosed and some actively limit party donations. Additionally, the system of primaries in the US system has an obvious impact on this too (Hamilton himself worried aloud about this in the Federalist papers when he argued that the selection of the President should be insulated from "tumult and disorder").
I think it is also why in the US, rather than a third party rising, the current unrest sweeping the west manifested itself in the capture of a major party the GOP and turning it into an instrument of demagoguery. In some sense you have already elected your 3rd party.
I concede all other points, and its possible that my analysis is more fitting for Westminster-like systems than the US democratic system. I dont know.
Thank you for your kind response. I am a dual citizen of the United States and Canada. Canada’s third party (we have five) is the socialist NDP.
As a voter who is far to the left on some major issues the NDP gives me a political home. In the United States the only choice I have is the Democratic Party or not voting. The Democratic Party is actively hostile to progressive voters. Each victory for a Progressive is a fight against both Republicans and the Democratic Party without organizational support.
In today’s partisan America having only two parties doesn’t lead to negotiation and cohesion as it once did. It leads to coercion and purity tests followed by shunning and cancellation. Both parties are effectively ruled by small minorities within those parties.
A good discussion. I agree a properly functioning two party system in a Westminster style government is a good structure. And, while I currently think a minority Labor government with a progressive minority like the Greens holding the balance of power might be good for Australia, I will also concede that this has not worked well for us in the past.
There are problems with the two party system as it is in Australia today. First, one of the two alternatives is now a slowly decomposing rabble unable to clearly identify what it stands for. This does not leave much choice if one is looking for a sensible alternative to the current incumbents.
Also, thanks to the centrism you identify as a key feature of the two party systems, on many issues there is no difference between the two major alternatives and Australians looking for a different approach can only turn to the fringes. Not pursuing wealth redistribution through meaningful tax reform, the US alliance, giving mining companies outlandish concessions in their pillaging of our national resources, and support for Israel in its genocidal campaigns in the Middle East are examples of areas where Labor and what is left of the Coalition are in lock step. There is considerable sentiment in the electorate favouring change in these areas but voting for the other big mob is meaningless if all one is going to get is the same policies wrapped up in a blue pamphlet instead of a red one.
Faced with the two party option being no option is it any wonder voters look to the fringes for alternatives? The Green's know this, One Nation knows this, Clive Palmer knows this, and they all exploit voter disenchantment with the mainstream parties to pursue their agendas.
So, yes, if it worked properly a two party system would provide stability and good government that meets the expectations of most of the people most of the time. However humans being what they are they cannot help but mess up something that looks good on paper. The resulting mess means we can and do wind up with minority and/or coalition governments so we need to make them work and it is reasonable to expect that the adults we elect to govern us behave like adults and figure it out. That is the hard part.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I sincerely enjoyed reading it!
I take your point on centrism (though I think of myself as a centrist sometimes), but I probably see it as a function of speed. The problem as I see it is that it takes time and consensus within a major party to agree on why they got voted out in the first place.
Though i didn’t make it particularly well, one of the key points I was trying to make and wish I’d lingered longer on is that as voters were should regard what minor more extreme parties claim with suspicion because they can, in general, say anything without fear of ever having to do anything of substance.
The other thing I can’t help but resist is “if it worked properly a two party system would…”. I’m arguing that it DOES work properly, that in fact, a stable two party system is and has produced the best results we know of in the history of our societies.
I’m arguing that we not throw away a remarkable achievement, or at least if we do throw it away that we don’t hand it to a bunch of grievance merchants as a reward for stoking our dissatisfaction with what is ultimately an imperfect but functional system
As a vehicle for providing stable government two party is working in Australia. What it is not doing is producing transformative, courageous, or visionary leadership. All we get is steady as she goes and that is a path to mediocrity and stagnation.
I am quite proud of Australia's model of democracy. We have managed in recent times to avoid the scourge of right wing populism that is occuring elsewhere. My fear is that if the big two don't do something other than just puttering along as they have always done even our robust model might start to feel a bit shaky.
I find this to be a puzzling and contradictory article. You conflate multi-party systems with proportional representation and two-party systems with “first past the post” election. While these are often tied together, they are not necessarily. Canada has long functioned with 3 “major” parties and a FPTP election system, as has the UK. In addition, both countries have minor regional parties that manage to elect MPs. While there are 2 parties that tend to trade power, the 3rd (and other) parties play an important role in keeping the 2 biggest parties honest, and serve as an alternative when there is frustration with the status quo. This is playing out in the UK now, and the NDP has also come close to power in Canada. The US with its highly polarized death grip bifurcation could really benefit from a bona fide 3rd party (and like Canada a way to trigger elections mid-cycle when things go really sideways).
Fair enough. While i disagree with you on particular points (though I agree for the sake of brevity I am throwing PR systems and multi-party systems into roughly the same basket), the point of the article was to try to highlight the strengths of a 2 party system. I very deliberately did not mention FPTP counting strategies as they are not a required feature of 2 party systems, though they often coincide. Australia for example does NOT have FPTP voting and still has (for the time being at least) the 2 party system that we’ve had for the better part of 125 years since federation.
There are always 3rd parties. Australia's 2-party system is actually a center-left Labor party and a coalition of center-right Liberal (dominant in metropolitan areas) and right National (which is dominant in regional and rural areas) parties.
My point is NOT that you only want 2 parties.
It is that a system that switches back and forth between 2 parties is actually the most effective way we've seen to approximate something like democratic influence on power. The Grand Coalition point about multi-party and PR systems is an example of why it CAN be (but isnt always) worse than having 2 dominant parties.
So your position is essentially that a stable enough oligarchy with a smattering of democracy and some civil rights is the best we can hope for to hold violent chaos at bay? If you have proportional representation but the system of coalition building encourages antidemocratic results, why is THAT an intractable problem? Instability and revolution are not to be taken lightly, I'll give you that, but geeze, what a defeatist position you're putting forward here.
Not at all. Its simply that the two-party system should be valued, and not, like everything else in the modern world, assumed useless.
The argument, as always, is that burning the system to the ground so that the new, holy and perfect system can rise up from the ashes to take its place is a folly that ends in disaster every time its been tried.
As for the PR, coalition building approach. Its not that it is intractable, but the Grand Coalition problem that I outlined is a flaw (a flaw that, incidentally, caused the collapse of faith in the democratic system in the Weimar republic). IF I am to defend a 2-party system against its alternatives, I think its my job to point this out.
But Im surprised this read to you as defeatist. It was actually written in the spirit of "there are some great things about this imperfect thing we have right now".
Well, I recognize that your attitude isn't defeatist but from my seat, what we have right now appears to be an empire beginning its dying convulsions. With a two-party system that, true to incentives, primarily functions to keep the economy stable and the donor base happy as the flames rise... I guess what I'm saying is that if revolution is inevitable here, then what is great about our system's resistance to shakeups in the meantime?
In any case, pretty sure I'm miles left of your views and I thought it was an interesting take to read, so thanks for that. Oh, and about that "ends in disaster every time it's been tried," (A) that's no less true of modern civilizations as a whole, and (B) did most of the present day societies not burn a prior system to the ground? We've only been at this for a few thousand years really, out of 100k+ years of modern humans. Nobody knows what "always fails," everybody claims their own disasters were less bad than the other guys', and we certainly don't know what works.
I’m amazed I hadn’t considered this before. If every group is represented, every group remains in the system, and the dominant majority—supported by an ever-growing collection of smaller minorities—can continue indefinitely.
Additionally, when my ballot paper is crowded with candidates, unless I research and deliberately number every preference myself, the eventual flow of preferences feels opaque to most voters, despite the rules being publicly available.
When the connection between the vote cast and the final outcome becomes increasingly difficult to follow, it’s easy to see why many ordinary voters lose trust and confidence in the democratic process.
On the plus side you raised points I have never really thought about. It is actually your originality that led to me writing this, my first substack response. It is so nice to stumble on great original thinking supported by wonderful writing.
Unfortunately, while I find myself very drawn to your support for the two party system I can’t get past the fact you seem to wilfully ignore the overwhelming evidence that neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party come close to representing the interests of the majority of Americans. Thomas Piketty was right when he pointed out that American politics has become a struggle to see which group of elites is in power. The Brahmin Left or the Merchant Right that is currently in power.
This battle is vicious and as it has become absurdly, nakedly, partisan and powerfully driven by corporate and special interest money Americans increasingly identify as Independents or worse, are not voting at all. The correct solution is for both parties to realize they have to abandon their extreme partisan beliefs and replace their elites with Americans who aren’t privileged enough to have the time or resources to make their voices heard.
If the only way to get these desperately needed changes implemented is to not vote or vote for a third party then a major third Party and probably a fourth, fifth, and even sixth Party are inevitable as is Proportional Voting. I would argue they will each have their own elite and the spreading of power will make America a better place to live if they don’t currently belong to the two existing elites.
Firstly, thanks for genuinely engaging in the article, and for the thoughtful response. Secondly, I think you're correct, there is a significant blind spot in my argument with regards to the US, and there is something vastly different about the US to the other countries I named (including my own, Australia).
Most of the other nations I named require all party donations to be disclosed and some actively limit party donations. Additionally, the system of primaries in the US system has an obvious impact on this too (Hamilton himself worried aloud about this in the Federalist papers when he argued that the selection of the President should be insulated from "tumult and disorder").
I think it is also why in the US, rather than a third party rising, the current unrest sweeping the west manifested itself in the capture of a major party the GOP and turning it into an instrument of demagoguery. In some sense you have already elected your 3rd party.
I concede all other points, and its possible that my analysis is more fitting for Westminster-like systems than the US democratic system. I dont know.
Thank you for your kind response. I am a dual citizen of the United States and Canada. Canada’s third party (we have five) is the socialist NDP.
As a voter who is far to the left on some major issues the NDP gives me a political home. In the United States the only choice I have is the Democratic Party or not voting. The Democratic Party is actively hostile to progressive voters. Each victory for a Progressive is a fight against both Republicans and the Democratic Party without organizational support.
In today’s partisan America having only two parties doesn’t lead to negotiation and cohesion as it once did. It leads to coercion and purity tests followed by shunning and cancellation. Both parties are effectively ruled by small minorities within those parties.
A good discussion. I agree a properly functioning two party system in a Westminster style government is a good structure. And, while I currently think a minority Labor government with a progressive minority like the Greens holding the balance of power might be good for Australia, I will also concede that this has not worked well for us in the past.
There are problems with the two party system as it is in Australia today. First, one of the two alternatives is now a slowly decomposing rabble unable to clearly identify what it stands for. This does not leave much choice if one is looking for a sensible alternative to the current incumbents.
Also, thanks to the centrism you identify as a key feature of the two party systems, on many issues there is no difference between the two major alternatives and Australians looking for a different approach can only turn to the fringes. Not pursuing wealth redistribution through meaningful tax reform, the US alliance, giving mining companies outlandish concessions in their pillaging of our national resources, and support for Israel in its genocidal campaigns in the Middle East are examples of areas where Labor and what is left of the Coalition are in lock step. There is considerable sentiment in the electorate favouring change in these areas but voting for the other big mob is meaningless if all one is going to get is the same policies wrapped up in a blue pamphlet instead of a red one.
Faced with the two party option being no option is it any wonder voters look to the fringes for alternatives? The Green's know this, One Nation knows this, Clive Palmer knows this, and they all exploit voter disenchantment with the mainstream parties to pursue their agendas.
So, yes, if it worked properly a two party system would provide stability and good government that meets the expectations of most of the people most of the time. However humans being what they are they cannot help but mess up something that looks good on paper. The resulting mess means we can and do wind up with minority and/or coalition governments so we need to make them work and it is reasonable to expect that the adults we elect to govern us behave like adults and figure it out. That is the hard part.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I sincerely enjoyed reading it!
I take your point on centrism (though I think of myself as a centrist sometimes), but I probably see it as a function of speed. The problem as I see it is that it takes time and consensus within a major party to agree on why they got voted out in the first place.
Though i didn’t make it particularly well, one of the key points I was trying to make and wish I’d lingered longer on is that as voters were should regard what minor more extreme parties claim with suspicion because they can, in general, say anything without fear of ever having to do anything of substance.
The other thing I can’t help but resist is “if it worked properly a two party system would…”. I’m arguing that it DOES work properly, that in fact, a stable two party system is and has produced the best results we know of in the history of our societies.
I’m arguing that we not throw away a remarkable achievement, or at least if we do throw it away that we don’t hand it to a bunch of grievance merchants as a reward for stoking our dissatisfaction with what is ultimately an imperfect but functional system
As a vehicle for providing stable government two party is working in Australia. What it is not doing is producing transformative, courageous, or visionary leadership. All we get is steady as she goes and that is a path to mediocrity and stagnation.
I am quite proud of Australia's model of democracy. We have managed in recent times to avoid the scourge of right wing populism that is occuring elsewhere. My fear is that if the big two don't do something other than just puttering along as they have always done even our robust model might start to feel a bit shaky.
I find this to be a puzzling and contradictory article. You conflate multi-party systems with proportional representation and two-party systems with “first past the post” election. While these are often tied together, they are not necessarily. Canada has long functioned with 3 “major” parties and a FPTP election system, as has the UK. In addition, both countries have minor regional parties that manage to elect MPs. While there are 2 parties that tend to trade power, the 3rd (and other) parties play an important role in keeping the 2 biggest parties honest, and serve as an alternative when there is frustration with the status quo. This is playing out in the UK now, and the NDP has also come close to power in Canada. The US with its highly polarized death grip bifurcation could really benefit from a bona fide 3rd party (and like Canada a way to trigger elections mid-cycle when things go really sideways).
Fair enough. While i disagree with you on particular points (though I agree for the sake of brevity I am throwing PR systems and multi-party systems into roughly the same basket), the point of the article was to try to highlight the strengths of a 2 party system. I very deliberately did not mention FPTP counting strategies as they are not a required feature of 2 party systems, though they often coincide. Australia for example does NOT have FPTP voting and still has (for the time being at least) the 2 party system that we’ve had for the better part of 125 years since federation.
There are always 3rd parties. Australia's 2-party system is actually a center-left Labor party and a coalition of center-right Liberal (dominant in metropolitan areas) and right National (which is dominant in regional and rural areas) parties.
My point is NOT that you only want 2 parties.
It is that a system that switches back and forth between 2 parties is actually the most effective way we've seen to approximate something like democratic influence on power. The Grand Coalition point about multi-party and PR systems is an example of why it CAN be (but isnt always) worse than having 2 dominant parties.
This is really a great conversation. Thank you Liam, and the responders.
So your position is essentially that a stable enough oligarchy with a smattering of democracy and some civil rights is the best we can hope for to hold violent chaos at bay? If you have proportional representation but the system of coalition building encourages antidemocratic results, why is THAT an intractable problem? Instability and revolution are not to be taken lightly, I'll give you that, but geeze, what a defeatist position you're putting forward here.
Not at all. Its simply that the two-party system should be valued, and not, like everything else in the modern world, assumed useless.
The argument, as always, is that burning the system to the ground so that the new, holy and perfect system can rise up from the ashes to take its place is a folly that ends in disaster every time its been tried.
As for the PR, coalition building approach. Its not that it is intractable, but the Grand Coalition problem that I outlined is a flaw (a flaw that, incidentally, caused the collapse of faith in the democratic system in the Weimar republic). IF I am to defend a 2-party system against its alternatives, I think its my job to point this out.
But Im surprised this read to you as defeatist. It was actually written in the spirit of "there are some great things about this imperfect thing we have right now".
Well, I recognize that your attitude isn't defeatist but from my seat, what we have right now appears to be an empire beginning its dying convulsions. With a two-party system that, true to incentives, primarily functions to keep the economy stable and the donor base happy as the flames rise... I guess what I'm saying is that if revolution is inevitable here, then what is great about our system's resistance to shakeups in the meantime?
In any case, pretty sure I'm miles left of your views and I thought it was an interesting take to read, so thanks for that. Oh, and about that "ends in disaster every time it's been tried," (A) that's no less true of modern civilizations as a whole, and (B) did most of the present day societies not burn a prior system to the ground? We've only been at this for a few thousand years really, out of 100k+ years of modern humans. Nobody knows what "always fails," everybody claims their own disasters were less bad than the other guys', and we certainly don't know what works.