Kevin Frazier will join the Crump College of Law at St. Thomas University as an Assistant Professor starting this Fall. He currently is a clerk on the Montana Supreme Court.
Imagine going to an ice cream shop known for its flavor selection. You walk in and immediately see that the shop lives up to its reputation. Flavors from different parts of the country and even different parts of the world are lined before you. Rocky Road catches your eye. Oreo, though, also looks tempting. The guy behind the counter asks for your choice - you switch at the last second and ask for two scoops of fudge brownie. But the scooper scowls and reports, “I can only offer chocolate or vanilla.” Shocked, you ask why. He quips, “The name of the store is ‘Two for You.’ The owner picks two flavors for us to sell each day and today you get chocolate or vanilla.”
Our political “flavor” preferences are also all over the place but the “owners of the shop”-- the individuals and entities with the most sway over our democracy– have forced us to pick from two choices many find either unacceptable or subpar. Some citizens would even claim to be allergic to one or both of the choices.
This effective limitation of political parties--and, consequently, of the range of possible political outcomes--is a societal choice. As with the ice cream offerings above, this artificial and forced limitation is unnecessary and unproductive. Just as a profit-seeking shop owner would try to cater to as many customers as possible by offering an array of flavors, a participation-motivated democracy would enable and encourage citizens to select from a broad range of political identities– after all, you’re far more likely to engage in a system that reflects your views and presents the possibility of advancing your policy priorities. The alternative -- the choiceless choice between two parties that may be as distasteful as salmon-flavored ice cream -- will motivate people to leave the ice cream shop (i.e., not vote, not pay attention, and question the legitimacy of our democratic institutions on the whole) or make a choice and leave disappointed (i.e. vote, but unwilling and with increased frustration).
The solution should be somewhat obvious using the ice cream shop analogy. Though the current two-party menu seems fixed, there are means for the people to provide with more choice. Alaska, for example, has adopted the Final Five voting system to elect its officials. In that system, all candidates compete in an open primary, which means that the two major parties have far less control over who makes it to the general elections. The top five finishers in that open primary then compete in the general election, with the winner being determined through ranked-choice voting (RCV). In a ranked-choice election, voters rank the candidates by order of their preference. If Alex, Bob, Cindy, David, and Emma made it to the general election, the RCV process would proceed as follows: if no candidate received a majority of the first place votes, then the candidate who received the fewest first place votes, let's say Alex, would be eliminated; with Alex eliminated, another tabulation would occur to see if any candidate received a majority of the first place voters--if not, the candidate with the fewest such votes would be eliminated; this process would continue until a single candidate earned majority support. Relatedly, cities across the U.S. --from San Francisco to New York City --have implemented different versions of RCV with the same goals of expanding voter choice, increasing candidate diversity, and increasing the odds of a more representative electoral system.
But my goal here isn’t to advocate for one reform over another. Proponents of these systems and others often fight over which “take-over” strategy of our democracy is best -- the real fight (and the corresponding resources used to sustain that fight) should instead be focused on claiming ownership in the first place. Any effort that returns democratic choice to the people, rather than the two parties, is worthwhile.
My goal is instead to remind Rocky Road fans - the independents and non-affiliated folks, fudge brownie supporters - the greens and libertarians, and everyone else that would opt out of a chocolate/vanilla binary that we, the people do not have to accept an artificially narrow democratic system. Political communities of all stripes have successfully made a dent in bringing down a two-party system that diminishes choice and participation--thereby decreasing our democratic potential. A better democracy is possible -- one with more choice, more representation, and more participation.
Trump’s ‘Just for Fun’ War Talk Shows a Dangerous Trivialization