Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

It’s time for a tripartisan revolution

Road signs labels Left, Center and Right
wildpixel/Getty Images

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

Former President Donald Trump has won a convincing Electoral College victory, although the swing states were decided by narrow margins. But when you take the 30,000-foot perspective of the election, it is very illuminating.

Forty percent of registered voters, according to Gallup, do not identify as either the Democrats or Republicans. Moreover, one-third of the 240 million people eligible to vote are not even registered.


Thus, we hear that our society is being ripped apart by, on one side, gun-loving, God-fearing, gay- and trans-hating redcoats and, on the other side, abortion-loving, gay- and trans-loving, gun-hating bluecoats. Yet the reality is that of every 100,000 voters, about 40,000 of them were independents who were basically anti-establishment and not ideologically aligned. Many of them were centrists, rather than progressives or conservatives.

The upshot is that of the 240 million potential voters about 120 million of them were either not registered or registered as independents. In short, half of voting age adults do not fit into the brutal polarization narrative that we hear about regularly. This lens is used to explain the election and the victory of one side over the other.

The polarization narrative — a titanic struggle between two sides that hate each other — is not an accurate picture of political America. A realistic picture reveals that a third of potential voters have checked out of voting itself, because they are disillusioned or disgusted with the system and 40 percent of registered voters are fed up with the two-party system that does not permit more than half of them to vote in primaries and does not give candidates who are independent a realistic chance of winning.

So, yes, the Fox News/MSNBC picture of a red vs. blue battle speaks for tens of millions of Americans, but up to half of voting age people don't fit into this picture. If Harris had won, the same analysis would hold.

Independents in the years to come must revolutionize American politics by establishing representation for the tens of millions of Americans who do not identify with either party. Although Congress in the last 16 years has certainly produced important legislation, some of which is the fruit of bipartisan cooperation (e.g., concerning Covid, infrastructure and semiconductor chips), there is plainly not enough important legislation to list. We are still waiting for lawmakers to address immigration, climate change, energy, child care and parental leave, and guns.

What is needed is a shift away from the duopoly that dominates our politics and makes bipartisanship the goal of politics. In its place, we must promote the goal of tripartisanship. A tripartisan revolution, however, does not seek to overhaul the system. It is more modest in its ambitions.

As Dartmouth economist Charles Wheelan wrote in his 2013 book “ The Centrist Manifesto,” we need a "Fulcrum strategy" in which five or six senators help one of the parties get to 60 votes by negotiating elements of major bills that represent a third force in American politics. These senators can be elected as independents or switch to independent once in office. What precisely the group would call for would vary with different bills and cannot be pinpointed on the ideological spectrum, although a centrist perspective is probably where they will be in many cases.

Still, unlike Wheelan, I do not advocate uniting a group of self-identified centrists; instead, I advocate uniting a group of independents across the ideological spectrum who will help forge major compromises because it is the right thing to do and because it serves their self-interest, including securing their ability to retain their seats in the Senate.

What will not change in the Trump presidency, and what would not have changed in a Harris presidency, is the disillusionment and frustration felt by 40 percent of registered voters and 33 percent of the voting-eligible people. The time for a tripartisan revolution has arrived, one that makes room for independents to have a seat at the table.


Read More

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War
Toy soldiers in a battle formation
Photo by Saifee Art on Unsplash

The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War

In the Rumble in the Jungle, George Foreman came in expecting to end the fight early.

At first, it looked that way. He was stronger, faster, and landing clean punches. I watched the 1974 championship on simulcast fifty-two years ago and remember how dominant he was in the opening rounds.

Keep ReadingShow less
Calling Wealthy Benefactors!
A rusty house figure stands over a city.
Photo by Katja Ano on Unsplash

Calling Wealthy Benefactors!

My housing has been conditional on circumstances beyond my control, and the time is up; the owner is selling.

Securing affordable housing is a stressor for much of the working class. According to recent data, nearly 50% of renters are cost-burdened, meaning they spend over 30% of their take-home income on housing costs. Rental prices in California are especially high, 35% higher than the national average. Renting is routinely insecure. The lords of land need to renovate, their kids need to move in. They need to sell.

Keep ReadingShow less
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed upon entering the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building on June 6, 2023 in New York City. New York City has provided sanctuary to over 46,000 asylum seekers since 2013, when the city passed a law prohibiting city agencies from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement agencies unless there is a warrant for the person's arrest.(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed.
(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

The Power of the Purse and Executive Discretion: ICE Expansion Under the Trump Administration

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

  • Core Constitutional Debate: Expanded ICE enforcement under the Trump Administration raises a core constitutional question: Does Article II executive power override Article I’s congressional power of the purse?
  • Executive Justification: The primary constitutional justification for expanded ICE enforcement is The Unitary Executive Theory.
  • Separation of Powers: Critics argue that the Unitary Executive Theory undermines Congress’s power of the purse.
  • Moral Conflict: Expanded ICE enforcement has sparked a moral debate, as concerns over due process and civil liberties clash with claims of increased public safety and national security.

Where is ICE Funding Coming From?

Since the beginning of the current Trump Administration, immigration enforcement has undergone transformative change and become one of the most contested issues in the federal government. On his first day in office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14159, which directs executive agencies to implement stricter immigration enforcement practices. In order to implement these practices, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a budget reconciliation package that paired state and local tax cuts with immigration funding. This allocated $170.7 billion in immigration-related funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to spend by 2029.

Keep ReadingShow less