Skip to content
Subscribe

The two-party system: a wasted vote?

Published:

According to the old adage, often mis-attributed to the likes of Albert Einstein or Benjamin Franklin, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Is there a better way to describe any continuing support for the Republican-Democratic, two-party political charade?

According to two recent polls from Gallup Politics, just 22% of Americans are satisfied with the way things are going in the country and only 10% approve of the way the Congress is handling its job, a new record low. Among Independents, the latter number is even lower. A mere 8% of self-described Independents are satisfied with Democratic and Republican leadership in the House and Senate.

Clearly, it is not because they have a significant level of support among the electorate that representatives of the Republican and Democratic parties continue to monopolize public office at all levels of government in the United States. Indeed, there are more Americans who identify themselves as Independents than there are who willingly confess that they still affiliate with one of the two legacy parties. A capital 'R' or 'D' appended to one's name is slowly but surely becoming a badge of shame, if it isn't one already.

Even among those who express some level of support for the Republican or Democratic parties, a great many admit that they do not in fact particularly like that party's candidates, and state that they are rather simply voting against the candidates from the other major party. Unfortunately, there does not appear to be much if any scientific data gauging the prevalence of this reactive mentality, but it seems to be fairly common across the political spectrum. It is likely safe to conclude, however, that without the pseudo-argument in favor of the lesser evil, which is beloved by Republicans and Democrats alike, levels of support for the Democratic and Republican parties would be even lower. As Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch wrote at Reason last summer:

“Every election cycle (and we are always in an election cycle), we are urged to remember that deep down inside we really despise the opposing gang of crooks.”

The result of this scenario is a lack of any substantive choice in our electoral system even when there is more than one candidate on the ballot. It is no wonder, then, that in so many elections, up to and including those for the presidency, there are more eligible voters who opt not vote than there are who vote for the Republican or Democrat. But it is ironic that if the majority of Americans who consistently express a desire for real alternatives to the Democrats and Republicans were to cast their ballots for a third party or independent candidate, that person would win in a landslide.

Of course, the stock response to any suggestion that one might support a third party or independent candidate for elected office is that you are simply throwing your vote away. But aren't things now the other way around? Perhaps the only wasted vote is a vote for the current political status quo, for the deadlock and dead end represented by the Republican and Democratic parties.

With the number of self-declared Independents steadily rising across the country, and even outpacing the Democrats and Republicans themselves, it is time to begin expressing that independence at the ballot box. There will be no lack of choice in this year's elections, though the partisans of the major parties and their mouthpieces in the media would rather we ignore this simple fact. Between Independents, Greens, and Libertarians alone there will be hundreds if not thousands of alternatives to the Democrats and Republicans up for election this November, from the presidency to the proverbial dog catcher.

In 2010, there were more third party candidates for Congress on the ballot across the country than at any other time since the 1930's, according to an analysis out of the University of Minnesota. Given the public's record levels of discontent with the two-party state, there will likely be even more choice this time around.

Adhere to the IVN etiquette

By posting a comment, you agree to adhere to our etiquette rules: No partisan attacks, no personal attacks, substantiate your sources, no self-promotion.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Republish this article

Republishing guidelines

Republish IVN articles for free. Independent Voter News articles may be republished online or in print under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, on these terms:

  1. Credit the author and IVN. Keep the byline ("By Author Name, Independent Voter News") and the attribution note at the end, which links to the original.
  2. Keep the meaning. You may update time and place references and apply your house style. You may trim for length, as long as the cuts don't change the meaning or misrepresent the author. Keep the headline. Mark any additions as your own (for example "Additional reporting by ...").
  3. Translations are welcome. Translate faithfully, add "Translated from English by [your outlet]", and tell us at editor@ivn.us.
  4. Keep the links, including the link to the original article.
  5. Keep the tracking image. The HTML includes a 1-pixel image that counts readers on your page. It collects no personal information.
  6. Photos and illustrations. Images credited to IVN may be used with this article only. Images credited to others (AP, Getty, Unsplash, Wikimedia and so on) stay under their owners' terms. Secure the rights or switch "Include images" off.
  7. Don't sell it. You can't sell our articles or sell ads specifically against them. Your normal site advertising is fine.
  8. No implied endorsement. Don't suggest that IVN or the author endorses you, your candidates or your causes, or that donations to you support IVN.
  9. Keep labels. Opinion or analysis pieces keep that label.
  10. Point search engines to the original. Where your CMS allows, set the canonical URL to the original IVN article.
  11. No bulk or automated republishing, and don't submit our articles to aggregators (Apple News, Google News, MSN) as your own.
  12. Corrections and removals. Update your copy when we correct it, and remove it promptly if we ask. We'll contact you at the email you give us.
  13. Questions or print republication: editor@ivn.us.

IVN staff: fill in who you're inviting above, then create the invite.

Preparing the article

The two-party system: a wasted vote?

Choose a format
  • HTML
  • Email HTML
  • Markdown
  • Formatted (.docx)
  • Plain text
  • WordPress blocks
  • PDF
Choose a platform

Photos credited to others need their owners' permission.

To for

Republishing somewhere else? Questions? editor@ivn.us