Last week, a student argued in the Collegian that Americans need to reject the two-party system in favor of a “marketplace of parties” where Americans vote third-party. He claimed that the former forces voters to choose between the “lesser of two evils,” while the latter creates a net benefit for all Americans, forcing parties to compete rather than succumb to a zero-sum game. This opinion is impracticable and self-contradictory since the United States’ republican structure inherently results in a two-party system, and a change to implement a third-party system would create the zero-sum game that it claims to avoid.
Non-binary elections are nothing new in American politics. The election of 1824, for example, saw four candidates receive electoral votes: John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay, and William Crawford. While Andrew Jackson received a plurality of the electoral votes, he failed to achieve the majority needed to win. Since no one achieved a majority of electoral votes, the U.S. House of Representatives had to vote on the top three candidates — Jackson, Adams, and Crawford.
Because Clay was out, he decided to make a deal with Adams to become his vice-presidential nominee so that he might still get some of his agenda implemented. In exchange, Clay gave Adams enough votes through his own supporters in the House to secure a majority and win the presidency.
Clay’s action, sacrificing some of his policy and principles for the lesser of three evils, shows political prudence. Clay was able to find common ground with Adams on policies like tariffs, which Crawford and Jackson opposed. While he did not become president, the most threatening opponents to his policies were defeated, and he was able to influence Adams’ administration as vice president — which he was only able to obtain through compromise. This historical example shows that political action always requires a choice of the lesser of two evils (or the greater of two goods), and that no matter how many candidates are running, elections are always zero-sum unless platforms compromise.
We have a two-party system because the size of the republic demands compromise. This principle, known as the extended sphere, is the concept that the U.S. is so large that it contains a wide array of diverse interests. Therefore, for any one interest to gain political power, it must ally itself with another to achieve mutual political ends. This is what Madison writes about in Federalist 10, when he states, “extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens.”
Because of the extended sphere, it’s unwise to choose the most ideologically favorable candidate and best to choose one that fits best with your political preferences and is most electable. The American republic is so extended that factions must compromise to achieve anything in politics.
Suppose there were many parties varying in size which represented more extreme, niche political opinions. The smaller parties would have every incentive to compromise with each other and form one party. Then, when the smaller parties have formed a larger party, the larger parties which previously dominated would have to compromise and join together to form one, even larger party. This is because each party needs either a plurality or majority of the electorate to win any given election.
Since parties are naturally incentivized to coalesce until there are two parties, a third-party system would need to ban party mergers, which would prevent parties from compromising. If this were the case in 1824, Clay would not be able to merge with Adams. Clay’s supporters in the House would’ve probably still voted for Adams to prevent a candidate more harmful to their interests from winning the election, but they would not have secured any of their political interests. Thus, the third-party system creates a textbook zero-sum game.
Compromise creates a net benefit because multiple parties win. Refusal to compromise means only one party wins. Each party gains more power in the electorate and satisfies their constituency more than they would if they were to lose the election entirely. The idea of a “marketplace” party system contradicts itself, for it seeks to abolish a zero-sum system by instituting, instead, an inescapable zero-sum scenario.
In 2018, Gallup polling said 57% of Americans wanted a third party. In 2015, it said 60% wanted one. Then, Gary Johnson, the third-party candidate, received 3.27% of the popular vote and no electors. Third party thinking does exist, but the impact of it relates to the two main parties. Some voters may see it as a way to pressure their main party to alter a platform position, or they may desire a platform with a set of niche views bereft of more mainstream positions. Nonetheless, the data suggests that many voters simply desire a fantasy third-party that perfectly matches their ideological checklist, but when it comes to voting, Americans understand that they need to compromise to allow for maximum power, and that manifests in the two-party system. Like Henry Clay, Americans do not like the uncompromising nature of multiple parties because they prefer winning to losing. The American voting system almost always comes down to two parties since popularity, not principle alone, wins.
Unless one changes the foundation of our republican system and dismisses the idea of an extended republic, America will always be a two-party system and there is no right reason to throw a vote away on a third party.
Jay Thomas is a senior studying politics and philosophy
