Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Transitioning to tripartisanship

Transitioning to tripartisanship
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.

The United States needs to transition in the years ahead from the goal of seeking bipartisanship in Washington to the goal of seeking tripartisanship. This process of transition will make our political system more in line with the other great democracies in the world, namely countries ranging from the United Kingdom to France, Australia, Canada, Japan and South Korea.


The concept of bipartisanship is regarded as American as apple pie. It is because our political system is dominated by two major political parties, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. We have Third Parties, but they have very little power. In Washington, there are a few Independents in the U.S. Senate, Senators Sinema, Sanders and King. They caucus with the Democrats, although they do possess some power as independent members. Still, getting major legislation passed in Congress typically requires 60 votes in the Senate to block a filibuster, and this is why bipartisanship remains a central goal of Congress. Even when one party has control of Congress, they rarely have 60 senators from their own party.

The transformation that is needed in the United States is one to tripartisanship, namely an ideal that would require the support of members who represent American citizens who do not identify as Democrats or Republicans. In almost every month of recent years between 40% and 44% of American voters, according to Gallup, do not identify with either major party. It is these voters, therefore, who hunger for representation in Washington.

In many democratic societies with parliamentary governments there are three or more political parties which have power. In the UK, there are basically three parties, namely the Conservative, Labour, and Liberal Democratic Parties. But in France and Germany, there are more than three. In Australia, the rise of the "Teal Independents" has been a major force in Australian politics in recent years. Coalition building is as British as kidney pie, as French as croissants, as German as sauerkraut.

The United States doesn't need a system with three or more major parties though. Instead, we need a system where an increasing number of candidates run for office as independents, be they libertarian, socialist, or new centrist. Together, these independents could wield power and force the Democrats and Republicans to arrive at solutions to policy challenges that affirm the point of view of the Independents taken as a whole. There may be four or five of six Independent Senators who vote with the Democrats and Republicans to get to 60. Independents can also play an important role crafting the bills themselves. On immigration, it may be group A of senators 1, 2, 5 and 6 who vote with enough Democrats and Republicans to get to 60 votes. On gun safety, it may be group B of senators 2, 3, 4, and 6. And so on.

The idea behind this is that independents would realize that they cannot have everything they want; indeed, no one can. The reason the independents would work with each other would be that coming up with 4-6 votes in the Senate would preserve their club and their leverage. Charles Wheelan was right to argue in The Centrist Manifesto that five or six senators who ran as members of a moderate Centrist Party could wield enormous leverage on Capitol Hill. Where he went wrong is to say that they should all be moderates.

The United States is not going to shift to a parliamentary system. Our president will be elected in his or her own election. We will never have a prime minister who is selected by the party that wins the most Congressional seats. This would require a fundamental change to our Constitution. But a tripartisan ideal is consistent with our Constitution because there is nothing in the Constitution which calls for a two-party system.

Ranked choice voting, Open Primaries and nonpartisan congressional districts will all help bring about this tripartisan revolution. But voters can elect Independents even without these important structural changes in our electoral system if 50 to 60% of them vote in primaries rather than 20 to 30%. In the spirit of liberty that animates the Declaration of Independence, the Independents should stand wherever they choose on the political spectrum. Although different in their ideology they would share a departure from both the Democrats and Republicans. This common departure would be the source of their power and their influence.


Read More

President Trump answers questions from reporters.

U.S. President Donald Trump answers questions from reporters before boarding Air Force One on August 21, 2026 in Joint Base Andrews, Maryland.

(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Trump’s White House Press Ban Violates 1st Amendment

The principle is simple. Just like politicians are not supposed to pick their voters, government officials don’t get to pick the reporters who cover them.

If they did, the First Amendment would be meaningless. and we would no longer live in anything resembling a constitutional republic. That is why President Trump’s September 18 announcement that he is banning reporters from CNN, MSNow, and Politico from the White House is so dangerous.

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

The CLARITY Act crypto bill failed a procedural vote on Sept. 15, but it could return. Here's what it does, who would regulate crypto, and the Trump angle.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

The CLARITY Act

The CLARITY Act

The CLARITY Act, which failed in a procedural vote on Sept. 15, and a new venture by the Trump family’s World Liberty Financial cryptocurrency company made us think it was time to write about the cryptocurrency legislation. Even though it’s not currently active, the bill could come back.

Keep ReadingShow less
When Money Trumps Life

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during the 81st session of the United Nations (U.N.) General Assembly at U.N. Headquarters on September 22, 2026 in New York City.

Alexi J. Rosenfeld/Getty Images

When Money Trumps Life

Last week at the United Nations, Donald Trump showed the world just how little he values human life. In a single speech, he rattled off a laundry list of “hoaxes” to write off: climate change, AI, “Russia hoax,” “Ukraine hoax,” and more. Climate change, AI, and modern warfare all pose existential threats to civilization as we know it, and yet our president seems hellbent on gaslighting our fears while accelerating problems that threaten our survival. What would make a person behave in such a self-sabotaging way? Well, perhaps we should, as they say, follow the money.

Earlier this month, the UN warned that Earth is already 1.4°C hotter than before the industrial age and set to blow past the 1.5°C limit in the next few years. The World Health Organization projects that such warming will cause roughly 250,000 additional deaths a year starting in 2030. Any leader who values human life should recognize this as the existential threat it is and change course. Instead, Trump has pulled the U.S. out of the UN's founding climate treaty, and his EPA scrapped the scientific finding underpinning federal limits on greenhouse gas emissions. Meanwhile, in the first six months since launching his war in Iran, Trump's nine largest oil and gas holdings gained up to $4.4 million.

Keep ReadingShow less
 U.S. President Donald Trump speaks from the Cross Hall of the White House on April 1, 2026 in Washington, DC.

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks from the Cross Hall of the White House on April 1, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Pool/Getty Images

How Presidential Primetime Addresses Shape Public Trust in Democratic Institutions

A question still being studied is the effects on public trust when the head of the Executive casts doubt on the institutions that run elections, enforce laws, and decide legal disputes. The President of the United States is arguably the most powerful man in the world. He is the commander in chief of a nation #1 in nominal gross domestic product as well as #1 in military power, budget, and spending as of 2026. The actions he takes spew ripple effects across the world and follow many generations. A way you can measure the executive's power can also be measured in how much influence his speeches have on the markets, opinions of the masses, news outlets, lawmakers, social media reactions, etc. His framing of an issue can shape the next day’s political conversation.

These conversations become extremely dangerous/consequential when discussing a principle as embedded in our country as Democracy. In his July primetime speech, Trump continued to pedal the claims about election security and argued for stricter voting rules. He continued to portray the country as facing a moment of corruption and uncertainty, followed by presenting himself as the one prepared to restore order. The address continued with repeated claims about his loss in the 2020 election that have not been supported by the evidence compiled over years of investigation by many parties. Professional reviews, audits, and courts have yet to find significant evidence of foul play substantial enough to influence the outcome of that election.

Keep ReadingShow less