AN INADVERTENT CASE FOR LIMITING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?

Northern Star columnist Kahlil Kambui, in "America needs a multi-party system," sees the flaw in voting, but probably not the implications.

America’s two-party system is flawed and needs to change. The current system offers mediocre candidates who don’t represent America. A multi-party system is the necessary fix for underrepresentation and polarization.

In the U.S., the two-party system is becoming less popular as Americans grow tired of it. In fact, in 2023, 37% of Americans wished there was a multi-party system, according to the Pew Research Center.

The U.S. deserves a selection of leaders that represent their ideals instead of having to choose between two candidates who don’t properly represent them. A multi-party system could help all Americans feel represented in every aspect of government from Congress to local office, bringing the political diversity and representation we need.

That's a student columnist in a student newspaper, and let us encourage him to discover the political aggregation problem inherent in any election.  Whether it's the dog-catcher, the school superintendent, a selectman, delegate to the legislature, governor, or president, we're limited to people running on a manifesto that bundles a whole bunch of stuff, and if we want some border enforcement to go with our abortions, or some passenger trains to go with our tax cuts, we're in trouble.

On the blackboard, offering a wider selection of party manifestoes might work.

Nader Alghoul, an NIU political science graduate teaching assistant, believes a multi-party system could better represent the American people.

“So that coalition would be the, open the door for more compromises, for more bills and values and programs that represent most of the American, so they have to compromise to reach for a deal,” Alghoul said.

While the most impactful advantage of a multi-party system is increased representation for the American public, another benefit is less polarization. Introducing more parties can reduce the hostility between parties, leading to increased partisanship.

Polarization between Republicans and Democrats has grown larger over the past 50 years, with Democrats becoming more progressive and and Republicans more conservative, according to the Pew Research Center. To move away from polarization and encourage more bipartisanship, a multi-party system is a must.

“Because to us, with only 217 votes in the House and a 50-51 vote in the Senate, so you can pass it if you will control both Congress (chambers),” Alghoul said. “But, when you have three parties, that will be divided. Maybe one party, you will need two parties to be on the program. So, that makes the compromise, and (is) more representing of the American people.”

Or, perhaps with more than two parties, the politicians will be more prudent in attempting Sweeping Legislation, because the voters might be voting for gridlock?  I've feared that possibility.

The recent follies electing a Speaker of the House suggest the Republican delegation is not quite the sole property of Mr Trump, and with at least four political parties attempting to jam themselves into two, fractious is going to be our reality.  Just for fun, suppose somebody from that "Problem Solvers" (itself an oxymoron, often government creates the problems) coalition in the House, whether Democrat or Republican, put himself forward to be Speaker.  Where would the loudest objections come from, the Freedom Caucus or the Progressive Caucus?  It would make for compelling television, anyway.

I admit to taking an idiosyncratic position in that post, suggesting that the real Head of Government is the Speaker of the House; and yet, if three or four political parties held meaningful minorities in the House, would the horse-trading to determine a Speaker be more fractious, or less?  Of late, the manifestoes of the existing major parties take the stances of the party bases, to the exclusion of the median voter.  It's not turning out well.  "We're likely stuck with maximum differentiation, rather than median voter manifestoes, all the efforts of the Democrats to have their Biden and Bernie too notwithstanding."  And with frangible coalitions electing the Speaker, would votes to vacate the office be our version of the votes of no confidence that regularly happen in parliaments?  Would the Socialist vegetarians lie down with the Libertarian hunters?

Other parties, like the Green party, Libertarian party or Socialist party, may have the ability to make changes in government that we need. The other parties have the ability to introduce new ideas, decreasing the divide between people in the political spectrum.

A multi-party system is the solution that America needs to the problems that a two-party system created. The benefits of a multi-party system is having each American feel represented and can reduce the polarization and fighting between parties.

Before we continue, dear reader, let us contemplate the ways in which the major parties have behaved to make more formal the tendencies in presidential republics for two major parties to emerge.  "The 'two-party system' is rigid in part because the incumbent parties like it: try getting on the ballot as a Libertarian or Free Soiler or even as a Know-Nothing."

And here, Salena Zito, writing for a larger platform than a college paper, weighs in.  "We Can Elect a Third-Party Candidate, but Not the Way You Think."  Everybody looks at the Grudge Match of the Octogenarians and yearns for Somebody Else seeking the presidency.  Good luck with that: the last non-Donk-non-Pach to win a state was George Wallace in 1968, and that was a horrible year.  No, she argues, the place for the Greens, the Libertarians, the various flavors of Socialist, the Free Soilers to start is ... with the dog-catcher, on the school board, in the city council.  OK, I showed the induction step; her column is about a third party candidate throwing the presidential into a ... divided Congress.

[A] serious third-party candidate would have to concentrate not only on winning a small number of electoral votes but also on fielding congressional candidates in these states or in a state that is deadlocked.

The goal would not be to win in the first round but to deny the major parties a majority. While a centrist third-party candidate would not be the first choice of either party, they would likely be the "least bad" alternative.

The strategy boils down to winning the electoral votes of a handful of states plus fewer than a dozen House seats.

Whether a serious third choice for president would fix things is another matter.  I repeat, because repeat I must, "But where you risk a true majority voting for awful things (for arbitrary values of awful) mightn't that good governance be minimal governance?"