Very valuable history and explanation. The end sounds hopeful, but I'm still stuck on the part that says "We adjust our issue positions to match our team, contradictions be damned." That doesn't inspire much hope for democracy via two-party duopoly, that those of us with strong ideas and viewpoints can craft the direction of a party. It sounds like most people will take their cues from an existing movement, and only when something seismic (like war, slavery, the de facto leader of a party being exposed as complicit with child sex abuse, etc) do the parties open themselves up for opportunists to jump in and lead the passive voters in splintering directions.
This raises a fundamental question about whether we're actually stuck waiting for catastrophes to reshape our political landscape, or whether there are structural reforms we could pursue right now that would make our system more responsive to voters' actual preferences rather than tribal loyalties. One reform that keeps coming up in this conversation is Ranked Choice Voting, which could fundamentally alter the math you described with Duverger's Law.
Under RCV, voters rank candidates in order of preference rather than picking just one. If your first choice doesn't win, your vote transfers to your second choice, and so on. This eliminates the "spoiler effect" where voting for a third-party candidate you actually prefer feels like throwing your vote away or handing victory to your least favorite option. Suddenly, the mathematical pressure that forces us into two parties starts to ease. You could vote for a candidate who truly represents your views without the strategic calculation of whether they're "viable" enough to avoid wasting your ballot. And the major parties have to shift their rhetoric to appeal to voters positively, as opposed to demonizing their opponents and offering "less evil" alternatives.
The question is whether having more party options would actually improve our democracy or just fragment it further. Some worry that more parties would make governing even harder, creating unstable coalitions like in some parliamentary systems. But others argue that's exactly what we need, forcing politicians to actually build consensus and compromise rather than ruling by slim majorities that immediately get reversed when power changes hands. More parties might also reduce the temperature of our politics by breaking up the binary us-versus-them tribalism you described. If there are five parties instead of two, it becomes harder to see half the country as your enemy.
The establishment resists RCV for pretty obvious reasons. Both major parties benefit enormously from the current system that locks out competition. They've built massive fundraising operations, media relationships, and institutional advantages that would all be threatened if voters suddenly had real alternatives. Politicians who've built careers in this system aren't eager to change the rules that got them where they are. State party organizations fight RCV initiatives, and elected officials from both parties often unite against it even when they agree on nothing else. The two-party duopoly is one of the few truly bipartisan projects in American politics.
But here's where your point about free agents becomes relevant. If parties really do chase votes and go where the people are, then voters organizing around structural reforms could force this issue onto the agenda. The key would be making support for RCV a litmus test for candidates regardless of party, treating it as a single-issue voting priority for enough people that politicians can't ignore it. Imagine if in the 2026 midterms, coalitions of voters across the political spectrum demanded that candidates, both incumbents and challengers, sign pledges to make electoral reforms including RCV part of their platform once in office.
This kind of post-partisan reform movement would need to convince voters that fixing the system itself is more important than any particular policy outcome in the short term. That's a hard sell when people are passionate about immediate issues, but the argument is that without reforming how we elect representatives, we'll keep getting the same dysfunctional results regardless of which party is in power. Some places have already proven this can work, Maine and Alaska have implemented RCV for state elections, and several cities use it for local races. These weren't handed down by benevolent legislators, they were won through ballot initiatives and sustained organizing by citizens who demanded better options.
The challenge is that constitutional reforms and electoral reforms like RCV are intertwined. RCV is easier to implement at state and local levels, but to really transform national politics, you'd need it for congressional and presidential elections. That means either getting states to adopt it widely enough to create momentum, or somehow convincing Congress to reform the system that elected them. Neither path is easy, but both are more realistic than waiting for the next Civil War-level crisis to shake things up. If voters can organize around these reforms as a unified demand, making it clear that candidates who support democratic reforms will get their votes regardless of party label, that might be the kind of pressure that actually moves the needle without needing catastrophe as a catalyst.
The history you've laid out shows that parties are malleable, but your own evidence also shows they mainly shift in response to major external pressures or when opportunistic leaders hijack them during moments of weakness. Maybe the next evolution is voters consciously organizing to create that pressure themselves, demanding structural reforms that would make the system more responsive to their actual views rather than waiting for parties to eventually catch up. That would be using our power as free agents not just to pick between the options the parties offer us, but to change the rules about what options we're allowed to have in the first place.
Timothy, after reading your lengthy tell on what may be a better way to allow voters to choose their candidates , other than with a two party system , I wonder if the average voter in our country would be able to completely understand your take on the matter in that it being collegial in it's wording, it may be too daunting to comprehend .
In my view, no more than three parties would suffice in my thinking because there could conceivably be an effort to offer a centrist option that could take the "best" of the other two parties in suggesting a possible compromise deal for the voter to wrap his head around as being an acceptable idea worthy of implementing through legislation.
Perhaps that is what the RCV is essentially offering, anyway?
Hey Clark, I appreciate the pushback! You’re right that my comment here was pretty wordy and technical - that’s because I was writing for Preamble readers who I figured could handle a more detailed argument. But if I were pitching RCV to the average voter, it would be much simpler: you can vote for your favorite candidate without worrying about wasting your vote. You can stop after picking your top choice if you want, nobody is forcing you to go into the weeds, or you can rank your second favorite and your least favorite too. No more holding your nose, no more being told to pick the lesser of two evils for fear of wasting your vote.
I’m curious about your suggestion that three parties would suffice. Are you envisioning that the third party would essentially be a “best of both worlds” centrist option that splits the difference between the other two? That does sound nice and simple, but I’m not sure why we’d need to stop at three. Right now we spend eighteen months obsessively following every scandal and primary battle from two parties. I’d argue it would actually take less mental effort to study five or six parties for just a few months before an election, and then have peace of mind for the majority of the year.
The other benefit of more options is psychological. Right now our system encourages us to put all our eggs in one basket - treating our preferred party as our savior while hoping the party we find evil fails completely. That’s exhausting and makes every election feel apocalyptic. With ranked choice and more parties, you might be disappointed if your favorite doesn’t win, but you’d probably be a lot less devastated if your second or third choice wins instead. It’s the difference between “my side lost everything” and “well, at least it wasn’t my last choice.”
Thanks for explaining where you’re coming from, and I share concerns about things getting too complicated for people to confidently submit a ballot. There’s a tradeoff: keep it simple sounds great, but at what expense? The expense of making your ballot feel meaningless, perhaps. Let’s not forget about the many, many people who stay home because they cannot support the two options they are given. The way I envision it is not to make things more complicated for the voter who wants that simplicity, but just offering more options for the voter who needs some more choices. And then of course enjoying the fact that all parties would need to adapt to a level playing field where they aren’t just campaigning against their one feasible opponent, but putting forward a positive vision of what their America would look like.
Looks like today’s article is all about why the third party is DOA every election. I’m loving the theme of these articles!
Timothy, I'm thinking about the simplicity of having an election that will draw as many Americans to vote as possible by participating in our Democracy in the process and to do that requires practicing the KISS Principal( i.e. keep it simple, silly)
What percentage of our electorate are even high school grads? More people need to feel like they have a say and do not need complexity in the voting process , but, currently, the Republicans want to discourage voting as much as possible with their ridiculous barricades to voting that does nothing but cause many to say "to hell with it" and not vote and that is criminal . Voting should be the easiest thing in the world to do but it isn't right now .
I think more than three parties will be too complex for the average mind to grapple with. You are a very smart man who can handle complexities , but the majority of Americans are not as smart as you are and thus ,need the process to be easy and worth their time and effort to go to the poles.
Very interesting piece on the two-party system within US politics. It begs the need to canvas the population to find out what is on their minds and what each party needs to know to make their campaign planks fit the current wants of most Americans. It seems that ,lately, those wants include affordability , religion and First Amendment rights, as recent poles are indicating , but as time passes that can change to eventually affect the coming elections in 2026 and 2028.
My take on all of this is to move us back toward a more balanced government where the checks and balances are prevalent and address the cost of living issues that face most Americans by taxing the super rich to pay their fair share in taxes to help reduce our current national debt ,as well as producing more disposable income for tax payers that will lead ,also, to lifting more people out of poverty in the process, as well.
I enjoy your article and the discourse with Timothy. I totally agree with Winner Take All contributes to maintaining a two party system, and that Ranked Choice Voting, and/or Multi-Member Districts with Proportional voting would help. However I find that almost every article on this subject leaves out what I consider to be the MAIN catalyst of preserving the DonkeyPhants lock on our political system - The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 that froze the size of the House of Representatives at its 1910 level of 435 members.
The single pillar holding up a strong, vibrant Democracy is that of appropriate Citizen Representation. Which we no longer have as OUR population has increased from 122 million to currently 343 million. In 1910 each member represented about 280,00 people and today it averages about 788,000. Literally no representation for those that can't afford a $10,000 political donation.
One of the fundamental reasons for the Revolutionary War was about lack of Representation. I do agree that any initiative that is hoped to create a movement, such as RCV, must be simple, understandable, clearly defined and have a quantified outcome if it is supported.
In your article it is stated 'So unless the United States completely changes its way of electing representatives, the two-party system is here to stay'. We don't just have to 'change its way', we need to change the field we play on. The new field of play is tripling the size of the House of Representatives to 1,305 Members. Because it is simply a law passed by Congress & signed by the President, it does not require a change to the Constitution (as would be required to eliminate the Electoral College).
This does require a grass-roots local, regional and national movement to achieve with Independents leading the charge. It is much easier for an Independent to qualify and run for office than the threshold that is required for a 3rd Party candidate as shown below:
TO FILE AS AN INDEPENDENT:
TEXAS:
Texas primary is March 3, 2026, runoff, if necessary, May 26, 2026.
1. File a ‘Declaration of Intent to Run as an independent Candidate’ between November 8, 2025 and December 8, 2025;
2. After the primary, gather 500 signatures from registered voters that did not vote in the primary;
3. Submit the Nominating Petition and the Candidate Application by June 5, 2026;
4. Federal Candidate Application by June 5, 2026
5. Maximum number of signatures required: 500
6. Fee: $0.00
ARIZONA:
1. File a Statement of Interest
2. File a Nomination Paper declaring candidacy
3. File a Nomination Petition with signatures equal to or greater than 3% of all registered voters in the relevant jurisdiction who are not registered with a recognized political party. In District 2 there are 172,000 non-aligned registered voter, so approximately 5,200 signatures from ANY registered voters in that district would be required.
4. Fee: $0.00
IF Independent candidates took up the banner, both parties may have difficulty supporting it due to their fear of loss of power and control. But that would put them on the wrong side of why the Revolutionary War was fought in the first place.
Clark, to your point about KISS. With 2026 being America's 250 year anniversary, Ken Burns' 'The American Revolution' (which too few people will watch), and all the media and events leading up to celebrations I cannot think of any cause so timely, and so simple as talking about OUR lack of Representation, OUR loss of Voice, and the importance of getting more average Americans' Voices to be heard in Congress. It's not about issues or politics - it's simply about reclaiming what OUR Founders intended in sacrificing their lives and families.
My educational website PROJECT1305.org explains well (I think)
Very valuable history and explanation. The end sounds hopeful, but I'm still stuck on the part that says "We adjust our issue positions to match our team, contradictions be damned." That doesn't inspire much hope for democracy via two-party duopoly, that those of us with strong ideas and viewpoints can craft the direction of a party. It sounds like most people will take their cues from an existing movement, and only when something seismic (like war, slavery, the de facto leader of a party being exposed as complicit with child sex abuse, etc) do the parties open themselves up for opportunists to jump in and lead the passive voters in splintering directions.
This raises a fundamental question about whether we're actually stuck waiting for catastrophes to reshape our political landscape, or whether there are structural reforms we could pursue right now that would make our system more responsive to voters' actual preferences rather than tribal loyalties. One reform that keeps coming up in this conversation is Ranked Choice Voting, which could fundamentally alter the math you described with Duverger's Law.
Under RCV, voters rank candidates in order of preference rather than picking just one. If your first choice doesn't win, your vote transfers to your second choice, and so on. This eliminates the "spoiler effect" where voting for a third-party candidate you actually prefer feels like throwing your vote away or handing victory to your least favorite option. Suddenly, the mathematical pressure that forces us into two parties starts to ease. You could vote for a candidate who truly represents your views without the strategic calculation of whether they're "viable" enough to avoid wasting your ballot. And the major parties have to shift their rhetoric to appeal to voters positively, as opposed to demonizing their opponents and offering "less evil" alternatives.
The question is whether having more party options would actually improve our democracy or just fragment it further. Some worry that more parties would make governing even harder, creating unstable coalitions like in some parliamentary systems. But others argue that's exactly what we need, forcing politicians to actually build consensus and compromise rather than ruling by slim majorities that immediately get reversed when power changes hands. More parties might also reduce the temperature of our politics by breaking up the binary us-versus-them tribalism you described. If there are five parties instead of two, it becomes harder to see half the country as your enemy.
The establishment resists RCV for pretty obvious reasons. Both major parties benefit enormously from the current system that locks out competition. They've built massive fundraising operations, media relationships, and institutional advantages that would all be threatened if voters suddenly had real alternatives. Politicians who've built careers in this system aren't eager to change the rules that got them where they are. State party organizations fight RCV initiatives, and elected officials from both parties often unite against it even when they agree on nothing else. The two-party duopoly is one of the few truly bipartisan projects in American politics.
But here's where your point about free agents becomes relevant. If parties really do chase votes and go where the people are, then voters organizing around structural reforms could force this issue onto the agenda. The key would be making support for RCV a litmus test for candidates regardless of party, treating it as a single-issue voting priority for enough people that politicians can't ignore it. Imagine if in the 2026 midterms, coalitions of voters across the political spectrum demanded that candidates, both incumbents and challengers, sign pledges to make electoral reforms including RCV part of their platform once in office.
This kind of post-partisan reform movement would need to convince voters that fixing the system itself is more important than any particular policy outcome in the short term. That's a hard sell when people are passionate about immediate issues, but the argument is that without reforming how we elect representatives, we'll keep getting the same dysfunctional results regardless of which party is in power. Some places have already proven this can work, Maine and Alaska have implemented RCV for state elections, and several cities use it for local races. These weren't handed down by benevolent legislators, they were won through ballot initiatives and sustained organizing by citizens who demanded better options.
The challenge is that constitutional reforms and electoral reforms like RCV are intertwined. RCV is easier to implement at state and local levels, but to really transform national politics, you'd need it for congressional and presidential elections. That means either getting states to adopt it widely enough to create momentum, or somehow convincing Congress to reform the system that elected them. Neither path is easy, but both are more realistic than waiting for the next Civil War-level crisis to shake things up. If voters can organize around these reforms as a unified demand, making it clear that candidates who support democratic reforms will get their votes regardless of party label, that might be the kind of pressure that actually moves the needle without needing catastrophe as a catalyst.
The history you've laid out shows that parties are malleable, but your own evidence also shows they mainly shift in response to major external pressures or when opportunistic leaders hijack them during moments of weakness. Maybe the next evolution is voters consciously organizing to create that pressure themselves, demanding structural reforms that would make the system more responsive to their actual views rather than waiting for parties to eventually catch up. That would be using our power as free agents not just to pick between the options the parties offer us, but to change the rules about what options we're allowed to have in the first place.
Timothy, after reading your lengthy tell on what may be a better way to allow voters to choose their candidates , other than with a two party system , I wonder if the average voter in our country would be able to completely understand your take on the matter in that it being collegial in it's wording, it may be too daunting to comprehend .
In my view, no more than three parties would suffice in my thinking because there could conceivably be an effort to offer a centrist option that could take the "best" of the other two parties in suggesting a possible compromise deal for the voter to wrap his head around as being an acceptable idea worthy of implementing through legislation.
Perhaps that is what the RCV is essentially offering, anyway?
Hey Clark, I appreciate the pushback! You’re right that my comment here was pretty wordy and technical - that’s because I was writing for Preamble readers who I figured could handle a more detailed argument. But if I were pitching RCV to the average voter, it would be much simpler: you can vote for your favorite candidate without worrying about wasting your vote. You can stop after picking your top choice if you want, nobody is forcing you to go into the weeds, or you can rank your second favorite and your least favorite too. No more holding your nose, no more being told to pick the lesser of two evils for fear of wasting your vote.
I’m curious about your suggestion that three parties would suffice. Are you envisioning that the third party would essentially be a “best of both worlds” centrist option that splits the difference between the other two? That does sound nice and simple, but I’m not sure why we’d need to stop at three. Right now we spend eighteen months obsessively following every scandal and primary battle from two parties. I’d argue it would actually take less mental effort to study five or six parties for just a few months before an election, and then have peace of mind for the majority of the year.
The other benefit of more options is psychological. Right now our system encourages us to put all our eggs in one basket - treating our preferred party as our savior while hoping the party we find evil fails completely. That’s exhausting and makes every election feel apocalyptic. With ranked choice and more parties, you might be disappointed if your favorite doesn’t win, but you’d probably be a lot less devastated if your second or third choice wins instead. It’s the difference between “my side lost everything” and “well, at least it wasn’t my last choice.”
Thanks for explaining where you’re coming from, and I share concerns about things getting too complicated for people to confidently submit a ballot. There’s a tradeoff: keep it simple sounds great, but at what expense? The expense of making your ballot feel meaningless, perhaps. Let’s not forget about the many, many people who stay home because they cannot support the two options they are given. The way I envision it is not to make things more complicated for the voter who wants that simplicity, but just offering more options for the voter who needs some more choices. And then of course enjoying the fact that all parties would need to adapt to a level playing field where they aren’t just campaigning against their one feasible opponent, but putting forward a positive vision of what their America would look like.
Looks like today’s article is all about why the third party is DOA every election. I’m loving the theme of these articles!
Timothy, I'm thinking about the simplicity of having an election that will draw as many Americans to vote as possible by participating in our Democracy in the process and to do that requires practicing the KISS Principal( i.e. keep it simple, silly)
What percentage of our electorate are even high school grads? More people need to feel like they have a say and do not need complexity in the voting process , but, currently, the Republicans want to discourage voting as much as possible with their ridiculous barricades to voting that does nothing but cause many to say "to hell with it" and not vote and that is criminal . Voting should be the easiest thing in the world to do but it isn't right now .
I think more than three parties will be too complex for the average mind to grapple with. You are a very smart man who can handle complexities , but the majority of Americans are not as smart as you are and thus ,need the process to be easy and worth their time and effort to go to the poles.
Very interesting piece on the two-party system within US politics. It begs the need to canvas the population to find out what is on their minds and what each party needs to know to make their campaign planks fit the current wants of most Americans. It seems that ,lately, those wants include affordability , religion and First Amendment rights, as recent poles are indicating , but as time passes that can change to eventually affect the coming elections in 2026 and 2028.
My take on all of this is to move us back toward a more balanced government where the checks and balances are prevalent and address the cost of living issues that face most Americans by taxing the super rich to pay their fair share in taxes to help reduce our current national debt ,as well as producing more disposable income for tax payers that will lead ,also, to lifting more people out of poverty in the process, as well.
I enjoy your article and the discourse with Timothy. I totally agree with Winner Take All contributes to maintaining a two party system, and that Ranked Choice Voting, and/or Multi-Member Districts with Proportional voting would help. However I find that almost every article on this subject leaves out what I consider to be the MAIN catalyst of preserving the DonkeyPhants lock on our political system - The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 that froze the size of the House of Representatives at its 1910 level of 435 members.
The single pillar holding up a strong, vibrant Democracy is that of appropriate Citizen Representation. Which we no longer have as OUR population has increased from 122 million to currently 343 million. In 1910 each member represented about 280,00 people and today it averages about 788,000. Literally no representation for those that can't afford a $10,000 political donation.
One of the fundamental reasons for the Revolutionary War was about lack of Representation. I do agree that any initiative that is hoped to create a movement, such as RCV, must be simple, understandable, clearly defined and have a quantified outcome if it is supported.
In your article it is stated 'So unless the United States completely changes its way of electing representatives, the two-party system is here to stay'. We don't just have to 'change its way', we need to change the field we play on. The new field of play is tripling the size of the House of Representatives to 1,305 Members. Because it is simply a law passed by Congress & signed by the President, it does not require a change to the Constitution (as would be required to eliminate the Electoral College).
This does require a grass-roots local, regional and national movement to achieve with Independents leading the charge. It is much easier for an Independent to qualify and run for office than the threshold that is required for a 3rd Party candidate as shown below:
TO FILE AS AN INDEPENDENT:
TEXAS:
Texas primary is March 3, 2026, runoff, if necessary, May 26, 2026.
1. File a ‘Declaration of Intent to Run as an independent Candidate’ between November 8, 2025 and December 8, 2025;
2. After the primary, gather 500 signatures from registered voters that did not vote in the primary;
3. Submit the Nominating Petition and the Candidate Application by June 5, 2026;
4. Federal Candidate Application by June 5, 2026
5. Maximum number of signatures required: 500
6. Fee: $0.00
ARIZONA:
1. File a Statement of Interest
2. File a Nomination Paper declaring candidacy
3. File a Nomination Petition with signatures equal to or greater than 3% of all registered voters in the relevant jurisdiction who are not registered with a recognized political party. In District 2 there are 172,000 non-aligned registered voter, so approximately 5,200 signatures from ANY registered voters in that district would be required.
4. Fee: $0.00
IF Independent candidates took up the banner, both parties may have difficulty supporting it due to their fear of loss of power and control. But that would put them on the wrong side of why the Revolutionary War was fought in the first place.
Clark, to your point about KISS. With 2026 being America's 250 year anniversary, Ken Burns' 'The American Revolution' (which too few people will watch), and all the media and events leading up to celebrations I cannot think of any cause so timely, and so simple as talking about OUR lack of Representation, OUR loss of Voice, and the importance of getting more average Americans' Voices to be heard in Congress. It's not about issues or politics - it's simply about reclaiming what OUR Founders intended in sacrificing their lives and families.
My educational website PROJECT1305.org explains well (I think)
How do we get rid of the Electoral College?