The Democratic and the Republican party seem to be very different. Certainly staunch Democrats and Republicans can't seem to stand each other. Yet there seems to be one thing both parties have in common. Both of them seem to like the status quo.
The status quo is the situation where maybe some of the laws change, different policies are enacted and different wars are fought but where the basic power-structure of the country is left intact no matter who is in power. This is because even though the Republicans don't like the Democrats and vice-versa they would rather play chess with the devil they know than poker with the devils they don't. And so neither of them tamper with the electoral college happy to know that even if they lose eventually the pendulum will swing back to them.
For the voter however this means that like in a dictatorship they only have only one real choice and although third, fourth and fifth parties do appear on the ballot everybody knows that voting for them is pointless and will probably lead to the wrong party winning.
In a dictatorship you are forced to vote for a candidate you might not support. In the two-party system you are forced to vote for candidates you might not support.
In George Orwell's novel "1984" There seems to be an eerie analogy to this state of affairs. On the bad side we always have either Eurasia or Eastasia while Oceania forms a coalition with the other to form the good side. There are two choices in this dictatorship. Oceania-Eurasia or Oceania-Eastasia. The occasional change of side seems to help diffuse doubts about the system. The system is subject to change. Things don't stay the same. We were on the wrong track and now we've corrected it.
But like on a see-saw going from Republican-America to Democrat-America is not really making progress it is repeating the same process over and over again until finally the see-saw wears down and breaks.
But the situation gets worse, because in truth neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are really happy with this power-sharing situation. And they should be because it has worked to both their benefits. But like everybody who has been in power too long they are looking for ways to consolidate power, to effectively change the two-party system into a one party-system.
Of course neither of the parties will want to turn this nation into China. They don't need to. There are far more sophisticated ways to decide an election.
The Republicans have been using three main tactics. The first was redistricting. By trying to redraw the lines of voting precincts in such a way that they had a majority they tried to guarantee a standing majority of electoral votes.
Secondly they have tried to selectively change the law in those states where they are in the minority to divide electoral votes proportionally rather than winner takes all while blocking similar initiatives in states where they are in the majority.
And thirdly they have tried to use their majority on the supreme court to fight initiatives that are not in their favor. For example they blocked initiatives that would have made it more likely for minorities to vote and initiatives that would have demanded more accountability from makers of voting machines.
The Democrats on the other hand have tried to do the opposite. Their main focus has been on getting more minorities to vote and also to have the electoral college be divided proportionally in each state. This should benefit democrats since they usually win the popular vote and also because it would generate higher turnout which also favors democrats. This could of course benefit third parties as well, but as long as the electoral college is not abolished entirely there is little chance of a third party really making headway.
In the end neither party can really hope to make the US a one-party state. However if either one of them stays in power too long they have the ability to tweak the rules in their favor in such a way that eventually getting them out of power would be almost as hard as electing a third party now.
Having a system with at least three parties would bring some fresh air into the stale American political arena. It would also raise the chances of solving more issues democratically.
For example if the third party was pro-choice and pro-gun and this reflected the opinions of the majority of Americans (don't know if it does, it's only an example) then they would be likely to vote with Democrats on the first issue and with Republicans on the second so chances would be that the outcome of votes would more accurately reflect the will of the majority on each issue. As the number of parties and the mix of stances grows so will the extent to which congress reflects the will of the people.
Most Americans don't want to change the system, they are afraid to rock the boat. That's how the Romans felt. That's how GM felt. Now Rome is mostly famous for what it was not what it is.
For GM, having just been surpassed by Toyota it is not too late. They can still reinvent themselves. But they should have done it earlier.
For the US the time for change is already past. The boat has been rocked. Let's not fall overboard.
The choice eventually will be between a one-party system and a multi-party system. I know which one I would choose, and so do you.
