American Politics: A Deeply and Irreparably Flawed System

Electoral politics in the United States is a very interesting game. As opposed to the parliamentary systems used in the vast majority of other democracies across the globe, here in the U.S., the ballot lists people instead of parties. Additionally, our system has other fun quirks, such as electoral votes and an inherently unfair and illogical method for determining representation. While the United States may be considered one of the birthplaces of modern democracy, just because we did it first does not mean we got it right.

In a country where candidates for political office are elected on an individual basis as opposed to being assigned by party affiliation, the way one presents themselves to the voters is often just as important as the policies they stand by. The race for the presidency is no exception, and presidential candidates have a history of placing their ideological values after their personal image. Almost everywhere else in the world, voters choose from a host of parties along ideological lines, and the number of representatives sent to parliament from each party is selected on a proportional basis.

In contrast, in the United States, different people representing each party first battle amongst themselves to be the sole candidate for a selected office; then, on election day, the voter selects which candidate they would like to see in that office—not which party’s policies. While policy certainly may influence the decision, time and time again throughout the history of American democracy, it has been shown that a candidate’s character can have a huge effect on whether or not they are elected. Another problem lies in the fact that if for each office, one party’s candidates receive 51% of the votes; they will take all the seats in that electoral body. Consider this example: in every state, in every district, the Republican candidate receives just over half of the votes. The entire House of Representatives would then be made up of Republicans. While this has not yet occurred, it is difficult to imagine the ramifications. I sincerely doubt that the American public would consider this fair.

Another major issue with our system is that it realistically limits us to two political parties being represented in government. Because each candidate runs essentially as their own person, and each voter doesn’t want their vote to be for naught, running on a third-party ticket is almost never successful. In effect, it is a catch-22 for third parties in American politics. Voting for a third party candidate that will most likely not win discourages that practice, as does running on a third-party ticket because potential candidates know that voters will not likely vote for them regardless of their personal appeal. Here is another example: if in every election for the House of Representatives, the Green Party candidate received 10% of the vote, there would still be no Green Party representatives in the House. This system makes absolutely no sense. The number of representatives in a country’s legislative body should represent the ideological span of the voting populace, yet assuming the two examples I’ve provided, that would be far from the case.

In summary, while we do have some semblance of a functioning democracy, it will require a great deal of improvement to move our system of governance into the modern era.

4 Responses to “American Politics: A Deeply and Irreparably Flawed System”

1. T says:

   July 14, 2009 at 8:43 am

   Ah, the old parliamentary vs. representative democracy debate.

   Be careful what you wish for. In parliamentary systems, small fringe ideological parties can quite easily become kingmakers. In this country, the people are (still) the kingmakers. The only thing more preposterous and more of an affront to democracy than cutting out small parties supported by tiny minorities (the US model) is the idea that those small parties should wield power far beyond their size (the model nearly everywhere else).

   I’d rather have a legislative branch filled with people who politically are forced towards the center by the winner-take-all system than one that gives inordinate power to little splinter parties of any political stripe.

   Does anyone really see the efficacy of changing our system of government to allow in some Commies, Green Party reps, and a handful of Christian Identity nutcases? I fail to see the improvement.
2. Siegfried says:

   July 14, 2009 at 9:21 am

   “In parliamentary systems, small fringe ideological parties can quite easily become kingmakers.”

   Exactly. Coalition formation — and parliamentary dissolution when it fails — is a basic part of the parliamentary system and has led to all sorts of odd bedfellows and government instability.
3. Jeff Nettleton says:

   July 16, 2009 at 10:17 pm

   It seems to be working alright worldwide at this point, and while it might seem different and scary to have a legitimate political spectrum represented in the legislative branch, it would most certainly be better than the stifling of views that reside any more than an inch from the center.
4. Siegfried says:

   July 17, 2009 at 9:35 am

   Jeff, our basic issue is not that it’s “scary”, but that it’s not at all obvious that it would be a practical improvement.