Tweet
A large majority of Americans, 58 percent, believe that the country needs a third major party to adequately represent the American people, according to a new Gallup poll. Only 35 percent think the Democratic and Republican Parties do an adequate job representing the electorate.
The desire for a third party is high because currently both parties are unpopular with the American people. A recent CBS News/New York Times poll found that both the Democratic and Republican Parties favorability numbers were negative. Perhaps more importantly, it found that overwhelming majorities disapproved of the job performance of Congressional Republicans and Democrats.
The country does not lack additional viable alternative political parties because people think the two major parties do a good job representing them or because the two major parties are too popular to allow room for an alternative. There is clearly the desire for greater options.
The problem is systemic.
The reason we have only two major parties is because our elections are dominated by single-winner elections–President, Governor, single member Congressional districts, Senate, national, state, local–where a plurality wins (first past the post) in most cases. If we adopted a proportional representation system for legislative elections and/or instant runoff voting, it would enable the development of more viable political parties. Of course, that would require the Democrats and Republicans who control our government to put in place policies what would increase competition and potentially endanger their stranglehold on political power.
59 Comments
Thanks for this report Jon
Well, then, I guess a majority of Americans are — horrors! — Naderite.
This should be a word of warning to both parties – especially the Dems. I doubt that they will get the message.
Where do I sign up?
Actually, IRV wouldn’t allow for 3rd parties. It suffers from Duverger’s law just like plurality does, because third parties don’t have an actual chance to win IRV elections, just like plurality. This is well documented in Australia and other countries that use IRV to some extent.
PR will indeed lead to more parties, but so will some single winner systems, so long as they allow third parties a real chance to win. As such, Approval and Score voting would allow more parties, and Condorcet would likely as well. Approval is most likely the quickest choice, as it is a relatively easy sell and is only slightly different from plurality. That said, both parties will likely make it neigh impossible to change to any of those systems, so it would take a strong push to get any adopted.
Or, depending on how you look at it, a viable first party.
I really believe the DP and GOP will get right on the proportional representation thingy next term. They so much care about “lesser Mericans” that they’ll gladly give away their power to lessen America’s democracy deficit.
Hey pass that this way I want some of what ever it is your smoking if you think that would ever ever happen!
The media has pushed the “two party system” forever, as though reporters and editors can’t count to three or four or more.
Laws are in place to crush third party attempts, because it would cost corporations extra money to pay off even more politicians and political parties than presently.
LOL!! Yes, agree: like that’ll ever happen. Agree with fwdpost @9: it would cost the oligarchs too much if they have to buy off 3rd parties, too. Sheesh… don’t want to upset the overlords, now do we?
always have been, – didn’t know it.
I think it can only happen if there’s someone with Perot’s money but much less nutty and really in it for the long run. Currently, third party candidates win some local elections or elections in small states. It is never enough to get out of those worlds.
Demorats….. Rethugz……
Washington, our first president warned of the effects of political parties concern to maintain power at all cost while the governance of a country is compromised and the general welfare decimated. How is that our first President’s predictions have come true. From George’s Farewell address:
“”All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.”
However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown.
….Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.”
Washington Jefferson……….. Giants with more intelligence and insight into human nature excreted in their daily bowel movements than possessed by the entire body politic today. When you put your life on the line for principle there is no going back!! Political parties suck and we suffer the consequences as Washington predicted. Corporate Servitude
Egads! The Apocalypse must be upon us… run for your lives, run for your lives!!!! ; )
Sorry couldn’t help myself Teddy.
Excellent post as always Jon, thanks…
Proportional Representation. It’s all about that, if we’re talking big changes to the system.
“The reason we have only two major parties is because our elections are dominated by single-winner elections–President…”
Wrong
The reason we have only “two major parties” (one, actually) is money, and the ability it gives our elites to turn “public servants” into whores. And the whores are happy with the arrangement. By election time, they’ve gotten enough money to buy enough TV spots to con voters into thinking they ‘re still public servants. And failing that, the whores from the other “party” will take over.
That’s why, to be National, someone like Perot has to be heavily involved backing the ‘third’ party.
PR and IRV are in no wise necessary to sustain third parties. Have a look at the makeup of Canada’s Parliament from 1945-1972; a fairly consistent showing for four broad-based national parties running the gamut from militant right to militant left (Social Credit — Progressive Conservative — Liberal — CCF/NDP). Canada uses the same first-past-the-post electoral system as the U.S.
Kind of what Washington said!
“…combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to (SUBVERT THE POWER OF THE PEOPLE) and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”
The first problem is that the folks who think the US needs a third party are split between independent progressives, independent centrists, and independent rightwing conservatives. Lumping these together makes the numbers deceiving. Creating a progressive third party still requires a whole lot of public persuasion.
The second problem is that if you are going to build a viable third party, you are late for 2010. And at this point, a lot of third-party talk is just a voter suppression tactic by one of the two major parties. You are also behind the curve for 2012 if you intend to build a third party that has national consequences. So think in terms of flexing midterm muscles in 2014, when low turnout makes it easier to win. And going for national impact in 2016.
What is will take is not a mystery. To take a Congressional seat takes around 150,000 votes in 2010; 160,000 in 2012; 170,000 votes in 2014 (and coping with redistricting); 180,000 in 2016. Unless you are in a state whose population is less than 660,000 in 2012 and 735,000 in 2014 and after. For Senate seats you need to do similar math. For smaller states, the Senate turnout target is the same as the House At-large seat. For California it’s 7 million votes.
For governor and legislators the numbers are similar. And there is where you open up election laws to third parties. So a national plan to elect sympathethic legislators for election reform in the states would be a first step.
For those of a socialist persuasion, the biggest help toward rebuilding the left would be to end the fragmentation of the socialist movement. A quick count shows 13 different socialist parties in the US; there are likely more splinter groups. And getting out of duck and cover mode. The socialist movement suffered greatly by being played by foreign governments; that provided the excuse to suppress it and delegitimize it. Re-emphasizing the American roots of the Socialist movement – Eugene Debs for example and becoming less toxic to the American labor movement would be good strategic moves, but not likely to be done because of political puritanism.
The current political environment is in a great deal of flux as the Republican party implodes (that doesn’t mean that it’s not dangerous). If the November election increases the number of GOP crazies in Congress, the most likely folks available will be moderate Republicans. If the Democratic Party successfully persuades them to be part of the big tent, there is room for building a party of disaffected progressive Democrats. If the Democratic Party does not succeed in persuading them, they become the nucleus of a centrist third party. If the Tea Party candidates all go down to defeat and establishment Republicans win, there might be a third party movement on the right that is independent of the Republican party. In all three of these scenarios, defeat of Republicans helps moves toward a progressive third party. And Republican victories cause Democrats, including Democratic progressives to go back into the Bush-era duck-and-cover mode.
Adopting proportional representation requires mobilizing in all 50 states. Do you have folks willing to go to Alabama, Utah, Montana, Mississppi, South Carolina — you get the picture — and organize this just like the labor movement organized in the late 19th and early 20th centuries? Remember that proportional voting is not nearly as controversial as the right to form union locals.
No money isnt the issue.
The problem is the “winner take all” systems. Like in Texas a few years back Rick Perry got about 36% of the vote. But because there were 4 candidates he won. Though nearly 70% of voters wanted no part of him.
If we went to run-offs like they do in most other countries, that might not have happened. The top 2 would face off. Also in that scenerio, voters would be more willing to vote for who they actually support rather than being told they are throwing their votes away.
I can see this in my congressional district now. Its a dem seat. And the dem who holds it will have it until they decide to retire. and then it will go to another dem who will be appointed for life. The thing is because everyone knows how the election is turning out before hand, people have no issue voting how they feel. The republican generally comes in 4th. The Libs are second and the greens usually place 3rd.
I guess thats the other issue. That the Ds and Rs have used gerrymandering to create heriditary lordships and the elections are mostly already decided before anyone casts a ballot.
Canada lacks a national election, President like the USA has. While Canada has several parties they tend to be fairly regional in strength.
Before the raise of the super president the USA tended to have region parties that function like one of the two major parties locally, Farmer Labor and Wisconsin progressive.
The first problem is that the folks who think the US needs a third party are split between independent progressives, independent centrists, and independent rightwing conservatives. Lumping these together makes the numbers deceiving. Creating a progressive third party still requires a whole lot of public persuasion.
I suppose this is plausible, but you haven’t presented any evidence that the fragmentation is really serious a stumbling block as that. Polls have fairly consistently shown majorities or significant minorities in favor of progressive policies that are largely anathema to both major parties.
Actually, money is the issue, at least nationally. Without having billions, Perot never would have had a national campaign. The other parties you mentioned there always run Presidential candidates. They get no attention because they have little money.
A viable Third Pary? Doh. I’m for that. As soon as we get a viable second party.
The larger problem w/our democracy is the old adage “divide & conquer”. As our forefather Washington was saying, the “spirit of revenge” factor has us playing a football game rather than deliberating what’s in our best interest as a whole. In other words, we’re getting played like ping-pong balls. The simplest, most viable means of sidestepping this (while even appeasing the oligarchs) would be to push for legislation that would abolish the un-democratic practice of registering for the D or R party (or I, for that matter). This would keep both major parties on their toes, as well as establishing a 3rd party, the Moderate Party.
[deleted]
Canada lacks a national election, President like the USA has.
Should I dig up similar results for countries that use the Presidential/Congressional system and FPTP voting?
While Canada has several parties they tend to be fairly regional in strength.
This is true at the moment. Which was why I pointed out the period, starting in 1945 and ending in 1972, when all four parties were national.
I am opposed to Third Parties!
Why?
What political party or political contingent advocates for a systemic wherein the even-numbered Congressional Districts would require a female member of Congress and wherein the odd-numbered Congressional Districts required a male member of Congress. Thus, at the end of a six-year period, these Congressional Districts would flip flop. Consequently, a far better approach can be accomplished in order to establish America’s Egalitarianism once and for all times.
As such, the Democrats won’t do it. The Republicans won’t do it. And third party candidates wouldn’t do either.
Moreover, to accomplish this, we will have to burden the “racial and ethnics” and the likelihood that of this happening would be significant and a sure winner for all of America, and regardless of political philosophy and ideology. To wit, this would eliminate any political platform available to the arch-conservatives on the Right.
Jaango
Thank you!!
Mandated Health Insurance!
Wasting 75 cents of every dollar spent on gasoline!
Spend trillion on war to secure access to oil, then rape the consumer!
Give to corporations advantages under the color of law as slave owners where protected when “Slaves” where adjudicated to be property!
If you can’t own people, just mandate a health insurance premium. Place a premium on life under fear of tax penalty! WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you political parties and the corporate contributions who buy law to fuck America as Washington predicted!!
Protect slave owners? Why?
At the present time we do not have a viable third party. However, here is a real good reason to go vote for Dems Nov. 2. The insurance mandate is small potatoes compared to this:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/9/20/903467/-Scalia:-No-Right-of-Privacy-and-Founders-wanted-Religion-in-Govt
These idiots have had plenty of opportunities to vote for Third Party candidates and they haven’t done it.
What they want is someone in one of the two business parties to head it up so they’d recognize the candidate.
A party that appeals to rich folks? We have two of those already.
It needn’t. If we were to organize a party with appeal in the progressive areas (both coasts and cities like Denver/ Boulder) to run ONLY in the House and Senate we could have a real influence. In Canada the party with the third largest vote total nationally, the New Democratic Party, receives only around 10% of the vote yet has been responsible for some of the greatest policy achievements in Canada (most notably, single payer) and yet it is concentrated in the progressive areas in the rural provinces of Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. We could do the same. How many votes would it have taken to kill that abomination of a health insurance subsidy without a public option, or, better yet, to push for single payer, if they had stuck together instead of caving like the so-called “progressives” caucus of the D branch of the republicrat party? And we wouldn’t have needed the president to belong to our party, given how useless and invisible he was to the debate anyway.
I think Dennis Kucinich could run on the Green ticket and WIN in 2012. He walked away with blind polls on the issues during the primary. I think voters would love the guy. Especially if he was the alternative to the hated Dems and Repubs.
Your statement is often repeated as conventional wisdom and also incorrect. The only party to which it applies is the BQ, which only runs candidates in Quebec. See this map from the last federal election for a visual breakdown:
Elections Canada 2008
I’d take a viable first or even second party. The number of mismanaged opportunities in the past two years is staggering… And,the GOP has stepped off the ledge into the reality of brain injured 5th graders (unfortunately, they breed).
Its not too late for 2010. If you can raise, about a million each for Green party senate candidates in Arkansas and South Carolina, then those candidates would have a shot. The democratic candidates in both of those states are corrupt (lovely blanche) or blazingly dim witted plants (dear alvin). They have no shot at winning. Look, we have to create a viable alternative to a very corrupt two party system. I’m creating an organization, as we speak I’m hung up on the naming of it, that could do just that. As Joe Sestak has taught us you can change an election dynamic within a month. Someone has got to make the argument. Someone has got to save the world….
Philip Shropshire
http://fivetwentyfiveplan.blogspot.com/2010/03/progressives-should-support-seius-third.html
PS: As dem fortunes plummet in Ohio, you might want to take a look at Green party candidates there…
We need proportional representation. Period.
How many volunteers does the Green Party have turning out the vote in SC and AR. Million-dollar ad campaigns might stir up interest, but they do not get people to the polls. In South Carolina, there is going to be a strong GOTV effort in the governor’s race because Vincent Sheheen has pro-business support that normally goes to Republicans.
Without volunteers in the field (in all 46 SC counties for example) a million-dollar media budget does not play to win.
It is too late for 2010 because the Green candidates do not have statewide name recognition and volunteers in the field. From the Democratic perspective, Green votes in these states will not be spoilers. Green voters in OH could be spoilers putting Rob Portman into office; it depends on how far Dem fortunes plummet there. Since this would be a pickup for Dems if they could win it, it doesn’t materially change the narrative in favor of third parties.
Greens should be starting recruiting 435 Congressional candidates and full slates of legislative candidates for 2012 right now and putting together campaign plans.
A comment I had dday’s waylaid President post where I was trying to state that SS is still a third rail and politically the support should be large:
Let’s look at the numbers:
How many people in the country: round to 300 million
How many will need SS (let’s cut out 10% as wealthy enough to not need it or in a retirement system that is outside SS, realistically it is probably less than that): round to 270 million
So 270 million people will benefit economically from SS, the other probably don’t care and a very small number are really behind crushing it.
What is the political power of even half of 270 million people saying don’t cut SS? Do you really want to form a viable third party? This is it.
This is single issue, but it’s one which should have broad support.
And after that comment (and maybe even in that too), I’m flaunting my ignorance.
The goal of The Real Change Campaign (best I can come up with so far) is to create a permanent organization that can create viable campaigns for inept third parties like the Greens that never seem to be able to do so! In other words, if you send your money directly to Tom Clements I don’t even know if or how your money will be spent. If you give it to the campaign, then I can have a field canvass up doing door to door within a week. Here’s what else I could do: use the internet like I’ve been alive for the last 10 years, advertise on prog blogs (are there any in South Carolina or Ark?), ask for enough money to win…but yeah its possible. It might even be possible to win with a good Green Party ad, which I can’t seem to find. The Clements ads are horrible.
You haven’t talked to the Greens on this board have you? That’s something that we can do here and can’t do at the Daily Kos. That’s why here is better.
One: The Green Party has an astonishingly weak national party. There is is no Green DSCC for example as far as I can tell. In theory, a competent green party would have 5 million in the bank and would spend it on nothing to lose senate races in South Carolina and Arkansas. They got bubkis. I think they want to have a weakened national structure and they want to be decentralized. Not always good.
Hey, at least we agree that you’re not spoiling anything in South Carolina and Arkansas.
Two: I did propose a way to fund my 5/25 and the Green Party. Have all 300000 (estimated) Greens give 10 bucks a month to the national party. That would raise about 36 million a year for the national party and you could seriously contest 5 senate seats and 25 house seats. Now, I don’t know how high up these greens were but they clearly wanted no parts of this because they’ve been so successful at never winning a house or senate seat…
Anyway, I’m going to take this idea for myself and the organization I have in mind, which can spend unlimited expenditures on a candidate but you can’t coordinate with the candidate. Not a 527 which can’t endorse…more later..
One more thing: you don’t need to contest all 435 seats. You need 5 senate seats (maybe just one see the Jim Bunning example…someone from the left not accountable to the corrupt dem machine needs to use those tactics. That’s why senate seats in SC and Ark could mean real changes now…) and 25 house seats. They need to act like real blocks that fight for stuff. I mean, I don’t like these results, but the Bart Stupak block and how republicans unify against high taxes should be the blueprint…
Exactly: very strong party unity, party first, person elected second. Ideas first, “compromise” seen in the most negative sense (in the same way that “collaborator” has a strongly negative component). Support the party no matter where you live. And stop looking for a wealthy celebrity to represent us, you just slit your own throat when you do that. I have no doubt that a “normal” (i.e. working class) person could win in my old district in Denver.
The reason you need to aim to contest 435 is to provide legitimacy for the label of a national party. This is what the Tea Party astroturfers sought to do. And it generates lots of free media because it’s something new. And the corporate media would probably let it air because it attacks their perceived foes, the “liberal Democrats”. A progressive third party candidate on the ballot in western Kansas who has a bunch of friends locally will make news, for example. And strategically, the time to seek to have 435 candidates is not 2012 but 2014. In 2012, contesting rightwing Republican seats from the left of local Democrats and winning them sets the story, just like the narrative that was set by Scott Brown winning in Massachusetts. Five Senate seats chosen strategically would be a good start if you could deliver one of the five. Here would be my strategic choices – Nebraska (Nelson); New Jersey (Menendez); Texas (Hutchison); Nevada (Ensign); Wyoming (Barasso). With Arizona (Kyl) and North Dakota (Conrad) as backup. And put forward a full slate of candidates for Congress in these states as well. If folks are tired of both Republicans and Democrats, there should be some interest in these states.
That just isn’t necessary in my opinion: we want influence, not legitimacy. I doubt that someone in Denver will care that the new party isn’t popular in Missisippi so long as it does what we want it to do, i.e. influence policy.
The problem we face is that the third party idea only comes up in relation to Presidential races. The voting infrastructure renders attempts toward this end useless. For a third party to have any chance, it will need to start in the statehouse races. State Senate and House members. Support could then grow to Federal House and Senate. This will take a very long time.
What makes more sense, for a more immediate result, develop and support Progressive Primary opponents for the conservadems and highly corporatist Democrats. We have already seen how meaningless the 60 vote total is. The Dems had 60 members but only about 49 – 51 votes. We need to start earlier than we did with Lincoln or Bennett. That is the only real way to impact the party.
That was happening with Dean and the 50 state strategy. We have to make sure that the effort isn’t killed by the opposition, again.
Meanwhile in NY Third parties are yet another victim of the optical scan voting machines which made their statewide debut last week. The problem is described in this press release:
Democracy » Voting Rights & Elections » Voting Technology
New York’s New Voting System Procedure Could Cost Votes for Minor Parties
Press Releases
– 09/15/10
New York – The Working Families Party and the Conservative Party — represented by the Brennan Center for Justice and the law firm of Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady — filed a lawsuit yesterday challenging a discriminatory New York State policy for counting political party votes under a procedure known as “double voting.”
Double voting results when a voter checks more than one box for the same candidate running on more than one party line. Under the state’s policy, the major party gets the full vote and the minor party gets no credit.
New York’s “fusion” voting system allows for the same candidate to run on both a major party as well as a minor party line. This allows voters to vote for a major party candidate while supporting a minor party. With the lever machines used in New York until this year, voters could not vote for the same candidate on both major and minor party lines. With the new system, voters can “double-vote” in this way, without any warning that their vote will only count for the major party and without any opportunity to correct their ballot.
The policies of both Legacy parties are abhorrent, it is easy to abstain from voting to support torturers and war criminals. The political vacuum preventing candidates who stand for most American’s real values from running will not hold much longer. Until then, it matters not which corrupt faction is feasting on pork in Washington.
That would be a mistake: where are the repuglicans and conserivdems? Are progressive polices popular there? Not really. Let them dominate there, it is what the people there want, and run in our own areas, so that we will get what WE want.
Instant Voter Runoff would remove the stigma from a 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc. party from splitting or dividing the vote of another candidate. The argument of Nader causing Gore to lose Florida in 2000 would not have a leg to stand on with IVR in place. Not perfect, but it takes away that establishment fear-mongering of ‘don’t vote for the third-party candidate, it will only cause the lessor-of-two-evils candidate to lose’. Something which would encourage all voters to vote for a party besides the Dems and Repubs.
Does a more immediate result necessarily make more sense? It took many years to build the CCF up to a substantive force in Canadian federal politics, but much progressive policy did get implemented in the end. It’s not obvious to me that forever running scared for fear of what the next election might bring has much more to recommend it in terms of demonstrable results.
A friend and I began joking about a third party last month. But it wasn’t really a joke. It’s time, and I think the population really is ready for an adult in the room – or at least a third party which will make the children began acting like grown-ups. When I was a kid (I’m 49) the “third party” was, effectively, the moderates of both parties who threw bones to their outliers. That’s over. It came and went with Monica and Bill.
But as a liberal, the reality is that a third party can’t be all about what I feel/know is correct policy. It’s going to be give and take with those we disagree with.
The key to winning will be taking policy positions that make sense to blue collar America and give them the hope of their kids reaching the next plateau. It will also depend on the middle class sensing that we aren’t out to tax them and give their money to people they view as leeches (the poor and Wall Street execs). And it will need to protect free markets while protecting American production lines.
Their are moderate Republicans of good will out there willing to take this stand with us. David Brooks and his ilk know what middle ground is. On our side, we will have to be willing to meet people like him in the middle.
But if we focus on Education, Energy Independence, Market Stimulus and strong and reasonable Wall Street Reforms, we will have the basis for taking a switch to the unruly children who are no longer ruling with wisdom.
Pragmatism and Good Will. Are we, as liberals, up to it?
But that argument was always ingenuous, as it grants the individual voter no moral legitimacy in his choice of candidate. Vote for the “lesser evil” party, or everything the “greater evil” party does will be on your head. (The people who actually voted for the “greater evil” party strangely never seem to come up in such discussions.)
If voting reform ever does get passed, expect some other equally fatuous argument against voting for the “wrong” party to immediately spring up in its place.
Well Jon, Here’s the bill you’d want.
Cynthia McKinney’s HR 2690 Voter Choice Act of 2005.
To provide that a State may use a proportional voting system for multiseat congressional districts, to require the use of instant runoff voting in certain elections for Federal office, and for other purposes.
I, Like Washington in his 1796 farewell address, am not sure we need any:
” have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.”