The Paradox of Partisanship

This chapter examines the paradox of partisanship. In 1950, the American Political Science Association put out a major report arguing for a “more responsible two-party system.” The two parties—the Democratic Party and the Republican Party—were then largely indistinguishable coalitions of parochial local parties, and the political scientists argued that too little, rather than too much polarization, was the problem. This sets up a paradox: Some party division is necessary, but too much can be deadly. Various traditions in American political thought have tried to resolve this paradox. Antipartisans have urged consensus above all. Responsible partisans have urged competition above all. Meanwhile, bipartisans have urged compromise above all. Consensus is impossible. However, both compromise and competition are essential to democracy. Only the neglected multiparty tradition can solve the paradox with the right balance of competition and compromise.

All Politics Is Conflict; Not All Conflict Is Toxic

This chapter assesses why the binary conflict over national identity is so destructive, and why it is so hard to escape from inside the two-party system. A conflict over identity leads to increasing inequality in a two-party system: because it crowds out economic voting, and makes it harder for voters to signal their dissatisfaction with economics separate from their cultural preferences. The chapter then explains why people cannot get rid of "identity politics"-group identities are the building blocks of political life. However, identity politics can be made less toxic by fostering a party system where important identities are cross-cutting instead of cumulative, and where people experience more uncertainty and complexity. A fully sorted two-party system collapses people’s thinking into dangerous binaries.

The Politics of Electoral Reform

This chapter explains how electoral reform can happen in America. Nobody doubts American politics is broken. Poll after poll confirms a deeply discontented electorate. However, there is less agreement around a solution. Americans seem to agree they want more parties. However, few Americans understand the institutional reasons why more parties do not emerge: The first-past-the-post electoral system. Absent this understanding, Americans are unlikely to demand electoral reform. Instead, they will keep blaming politicians for responding to the incentives the political system demands, and continue to be disappointed. As such, it is urgent that people make the connection between electoral reform and more parties. The encouraging news is that Americans may now be unusually open to institutional reforms. Politicians may also be open to reform; they do not like the system either. Ultimately, America must end the winner-take-all system of elections that is powering the two-party doom loop. The future of American democracy depends on it.

Two Few

This chapter argues the case for multiparty democracy. Multiparty democracy with proportional representation is the norm among advanced democracies. America is the rare democracy left behind with an antiquated first-past-the-post voting system. The rigid two-party system that emerges from this voting method makes it impossible to find a new political center in changing times. Instead, it has reduced the political system to a doom loop of gridlock and zero-sum toxic politics as major problems mount and society becomes more and more unequal. This need not be America’s fate. Electoral reform is a straightforward and proven remedy. Moreover, the track record for multiparty democracy is strong. Countries with proportional voting systems that generate multiparty democracy have higher voter turnout, more compromise-oriented politics, more broadly legitimate policymaking, and better minority representation. The chapter then discusses why multiparty democracy is better equipped to respond to the rise of far-right populism.

Designing the Save American Democracy Act

This chapter explores the specifics of a new voting system: ranked-choice voting, with multi-member districts for the US House. As the name suggests, ranked-choice voting lets voters rank their choices. The votes are then tallied as follows: If one candidate has an outright majority of first-place votes, that candidate wins. However, if no candidate has a majority in the first round, second-choice preferences come into play. The candidate with the fewest number of first-choice votes is eliminated, and voters who had ranked that candidate first have their votes transferred to the candidate they ranked second. This continues until a single candidate gathers a majority, with subsequent preferences transferring as candidates get eliminated from the bottom up. Ranked-choice voting, especially multi-winner ranked-choice voting, is the best way to balance voter choice, stronger parties, and encourage moderation. Moreover, a bigger U.S. House would improve American democracy and support more multiparty democracy.

The New Era of Toxic Politics

This chapter looks at the new era of toxic politics, when a fully-nationalized, fully-sorted two-party system emerged, divided over increasingly existential questions over the fate of American national identity. American national politics is so dysfunctional because it has two disciplined, non-overlapping parties, each constantly seeking to win a narrow majority. The institutions are set up to require compromise and coalition-building. However, electoral politics now push against compromise and coalition-building. Parties have no incentive to work together. And voters, increasingly convinced the fate of the nation is at stake with every election, now actively punish compromise. The result is toxic politics and political disaster. Though these trends have been building for decades, it was only in the 2010s that they reached their full expression. It was in the 2010s that political opposition fully became political obstructionism, and that political opponents became political enemies. Finally, the 2010s marked the completion of the half-century partisan realignment that began with the civil rights revolution, with one party (the Democrats) fully becoming the party of diversity and cosmopolitan values, and one party (the Republicans) fully becoming the party of white, Christian America and traditionalist America. This is the kind of political conflict that can destroy democracy.

Introduction

This introductory chapter provides an overview of the current two-party system in America. While America has always had a two-party system in name, for most of their history, the two parties have been capacious, incoherent, and overlapping. This overlap lent a certain stability to American national politics, and it worked with, rather than against, their compromise-oriented political institutions. This modern era is qualitatively different: Two distinct, national party coalitions organized around two distinct visions of American national identity, each claiming to represent a true majority. A fully divided two-party system without any overlap is probably unworkable in any democracy, given what it does to people’s minds. Without a high degree of national consensus, it leads people to see their fellow citizens not as political opponents to politely disagree with, but as enemies to disregard and destroy. Moreover, a fully divided two-party system is completely unworkable when the division is over the character of national identity, as it is today. This raises the stakes impossibly high and makes compromise impossible. It poses an existential threat to the future of American democracy. This book then assesses how America can become a multiparty democracy and break the destructive binary.

The Future of American Democracy

This concluding chapter presents a vision of a future multiparty America and makes a final plea for reform. If Americans do not change their electoral system, they are in big trouble. Democracies die when the country splits apart into two sides who distrust and fear each other so much that one side blows up norms of fair play to keep the other party out of power. Once that happens, it is tricky to restore a stable equilibrium. Unfortunately, this is where America’s doom loop of toxic two-party politics is headed. Electoral reform is the solution. Modest proportional representation with ranked-choice voting will scramble the winner-take-all incentives. Moreover, a new electoral system can create space for entrepreneurial politicians to find new, creative solutions to hard public problems and can re-orient partisan identities so America can have the healthy kind of identity politics again where identities cross-cut each other, instead of cumulate. In addition, multiparty democracy is a proven solution. It has produced stable and productive governance in many countries-including the United States. When American democracy operated more like a multiparty system, American democracy was more stable.

The Breakdown of Political Fairness

This chapter addresses the implications of the new party system for the foundational democratic norm of shared fairness. If people cannot agree on fair democratic processes, then nothing is legitimate. If nothing is legitimate, people no longer have rule of law. The chapter then discusses the breakdown of procedural fairness in election law, focusing on gerrymandering and voting rules; examines how partisanship is shaping facts and information; and looks ahead at what happens without shared understandings or shared rules in politics. It looks very ugly, and potentially violent. Given that all these problems are self-reinforcing doom loops in a two-party system, it will be very hard to break them without major electoral reforms to facilitate more parties.

The Collapse of the Four-Party System and the Rise of Zero-Sum Politics

This chapter explains the role that America’s political institutions had in separating the party coalitions and raising the stakes. In an earlier era, when parties were looser coalitions, America had a hidden four-party system-with Liberal Democrats, Conservative Democrats, Liberal Republicans, and Conservative Republicans. This created space for more fluid and flexible coalitions that differed on an issue by issue basis. Especially from the mid-1960s through the mid-1980s, this allowed for broadly responsive policymaking. However, as politics nationalized around "culture war" questions, conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans began to go extinct. Given the winner-take-all nature of elections, parties shrunk to their separate geographic cores, becoming much more distinct. The close balance of power nationally turned national partisan competition into trench warfare, with an increasingly dysfunctional Congress as ground zero.