Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

No room for bipartisanship in an America split into three parts

Opinion

Pie chart in three pieces (blue, red, yellow)

"It is manifestly untrue that bipartisanship is essential to the concept of democracy because democratic states that have three or more political parties (including France, Germany, Israel and Australia) do not pursue bipartisanship," writes Anderson

Vlatko Gasparic/Getty Images

Anderson edited "Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework" (Springer, 2014), has taught at five universities and ran for the Democratic nomination for a Maryland congressional seat in 2016.

In January 2021, I wrote an op-ed for The Fulcrum that argued the term “polarized” does not describe our political dynamics because we are not split in half. It’s worth revisiting that piece today given the latest data on partisanship.

Gallup reports that 43 percent of Americans did not identify as Democrats or Republicans in the last year. I have been citing Gallup's polls on the D/R/independent split for the past three years because the statistics are so astounding.


Something does not make sense about the polarization narrative when close to half of the public say they do not identify as Democrats or Republicans. Saying you do not identify with either party is an incredibly strong statement about your political identity. A range of political scientists in recent years argue that the public is polarized, but the polarization is more about "affective polarization" than "ideological polarization." This means citizens have negative emotions about those who identify with the opposite party. They don't like them, or they hate them, or they will not socialize with them or marry them or befriend them. On the other hand, there is more common ground on policy than the media reports.

This distinction conceals the fact that almost half of the public does not self-identify as Democratic or Republican. Moreover, the fact that most of the independents "lean" toward one party rather than the other essentially confirms the reality that votes only matter if they are cast for candidates who are from one of the two parties.

The fact that America is split into three parts is related to the assumption throughout Washington and much of the country that bipartisanship is part of the meaning of democracy itself, the way having three sides is part of a triangle. Yet it is manifestly untrue that bipartisanship is essential to the concept of democracy because democratic states that have three or more political parties (including France, Germany, Israel and Australia) do not pursue bipartisanship. If they did, this would flatly deny representation to the citizens who identify with the third or fourth or fifth parties that make up their legislature, which is typically a parliament.

The sorry state of American democracy today requires a shift from a two-party system to one in which a third force is present in Washington to provide a basis for the passage of major policy bills. What is needed is a small number of independents in the House and especially the Senate, where 60 percent is needed to pass major bills. These independents, who should come from different ideological perspectives, would not caucus with either party and they would possess enormous leverage. The transformation that is needed cannot be top down by trying to elect a third-party president.

Charles Wheelan argued in “The Centrist Manifesto” for a centrist third party that would implement a "fulcrum strategy." In its place, I argue for an ideologically diverse group of independents who would implement a fulcrum strategy but who would not paint a target on its back. How independents are to get elected is a huge question. The short answer is that two things need to be done:

  1. We need election reform laws like open primaries, ranked-choice voting and the elimination of gerrymandering.
  2. Greater numbers of voters need to vote in primaries to decrease the voice of the polarized base in both parties, separate and independent from laws and regulations that would make it easier for voters to vote.

The process of transition to seeking tripartisanship will turn on a sufficient number of candidates running for office as independents and a sufficient number of donors backing those candidates in addition to various election reform laws being passed. Some of these changes can be brought about during 2024, but most will have to be worked for after November. We cannot wait till after Election Day to discuss the transformation that is needed.

The American Revolution itself was not a one- or two-year event. It lasted from 1776 to 1783, and even then the actions of 1776 were preceded by at least 10 years of colonist challenges to the British Crown. The Second American Revolution, one that requires a Declaration of Independents, will not be a one- or two-year event either. It can be done, it should be done and, if up to a third of Americans want it to be done, then it will be done.

Read More

U.S. President Barack Obama speaking on the phone in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Barack Obama talks President Barack Obama talks with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan during a phone call from the Oval Office on November 2, 2009 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, The White House

‘Obama, You're 15 Years Too Late!’

The mid-decade redistricting fight continues, while the word “hypocrisy” has become increasingly common in the media.

The origin of mid-decade redistricting dates back to the early history of the United States. However, its resurgence and legal acceptance primarily stem from the Texas redistricting effort in 2003, a controversial move by the Republican Party to redraw the state's congressional districts, and the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry. This decision, which confirmed that mid-decade redistricting is not prohibited by federal law, was a significant turning point in the acceptance of this practice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand of a person casting a ballot at a polling station during voting.

Gerrymandering silences communities and distorts elections. Proportional representation offers a proven path to fairer maps and real democracy.

Getty Images, bizoo_n

Gerrymandering Today, Gerrymandering Tomorrow, Gerrymandering Forever

In 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace declared, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." (Watch the video of his speech.) As a politically aware high school senior, I was shocked by the venom and anger in his voice—the open, defiant embrace of systematic disenfranchisement, so different from the quieter racism I knew growing up outside Boston.

Today, watching politicians openly rig elections, I feel that same disbelief—especially seeing Republican leaders embrace that same systematic approach: gerrymandering now, gerrymandering tomorrow, gerrymandering forever.

Keep ReadingShow less
An oversized ballot box surrounded by people.

Young people worldwide form new parties to reshape politics—yet America’s two-party system blocks them.

Getty Images, J Studios

No Country for Young Politicians—and How To Fix That

In democracies around the world, young people have started new political parties whenever the establishment has sidelined their views or excluded them from policymaking. These parties have sometimes reinvigorated political competition, compelled established parties to take previously neglected issues seriously, or encouraged incumbent leaders to find better ways to include and reach out to young voters.

In Europe, a trio in their twenties started Volt in 2017 as a pan-European response to Brexit, and the party has managed to win seats in the European Parliament and in some national legislatures. In Germany, young people concerned about climate change created Klimaliste, a party committed to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as per the Paris Agreement. Although the party hasn’t won seats at the federal level, they have managed to win some municipal elections. In Chile, leaders of the 2011 student protests, who then won seats as independent candidates, created political parties like Revolución Democrática and Convergencia Social to institutionalize their movements. In 2022, one of these former student leaders, Gabriel Boric, became the president of Chile at 36 years old.

Keep ReadingShow less
How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

Demonstrators gather outside of The United States Supreme Court during an oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford to call for an end to partisan gerrymandering on October 3, 2017 in Washington, DC

Getty Images, Olivier Douliery

How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. ~ Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Col. Edward Carrington, Paris, 27 May 1788

The Problem We Face

The U.S. House of Representatives was designed as the chamber of Congress most directly tethered to the people. Article I of the Constitution mandates that seats be apportioned among the states according to population and that members face election every two years—design features meant to keep representatives responsive to shifting public sentiment. Unlike the Senate, which prioritizes state sovereignty and representation, the House translates raw population counts into political voice: each House district is to contain roughly the same number of residents, ensuring that every citizen’s vote carries comparable weight. In principle, then, the House serves as the nation’s demographic mirror, channeling the diverse preferences of the electorate into lawmaking and acting as a safeguard against unresponsive or oligarchic governance.

Nationally, the mismatch between the overall popular vote and the partisan split in House seats is small, with less than a 1% tilt. But state-level results tell a different story. Take Connecticut: Democrats hold all five seats despite Republicans winning over 40% of the statewide vote. In Oklahoma, the inverse occurs—Republicans control every seat even though Democrats consistently earn around 40% of the vote.

Keep ReadingShow less