What Is It About Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Anyway? 12 Voters Explain His Appeal.
The participants talk about their frustrations with the two-party system, the appeal of third-party candidates and the issues most important to them in voting for president.
What Is It About Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Anyway? 12 Voters Explain His Appeal.What Is It About Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Anyway? 12 Voters Explain His Appeal.Robert F. Kennedy Jr. didn’t make the cut for Thursday’s presidential debate, but he’s still a factor in the race, tapping into the skeptical, anti-establishment mood of many American voters. For our latest Times Opinion focus group, we wanted to explore the nature of Mr. Kennedy’s appeal to independent, Democratic and Republican voters who reflect a share of the electorate — unhappy with the Biden-Trump rematch, tired of politics, loosely informed about policy. Their curiosity about him shed light on what is and isn’t clicking in politics.The 12 participants in the focus group saw the two major political parties as largely the same: fighting on behalf of the elites, out for themselves, not taking strong stances or being effective. (Abortion may be the biggest differentiator.) Many didn’t see either party as reflecting their views. Most saw President Biden as too old and Donald Trump as untrustworthy; when we asked what kind of car each would be, Mr. Biden was described as a Model T or an old Buick, and Mr. Trump was a car that had parts missing or was fancy looking but rusted out.The voters intrigued by Mr. Kennedy seemed more likely to reflect Trumpist views — angry about establishment politics, immigration, government mandates and vaccination policies. A couple of people were opposed to Mr. Biden over the war in Gaza, calling it a genocide and him a murderer.Some of Mr. Kennedy’s more controversial views — on vaccines and antidepressants — seemed to help him with these voters, as did the opposition to his candidacy by several of his relatives. His experience with addiction also gave him some relatability. Most of the participants didn’t think he would win in November, but they were hungry for an outspoken outsider who wasn’t Mr. Trump.“You can disagree with Kennedy. I disagree with him on quite a few things. But he’s not hiding what his views are, the way that I feel Joe Biden is and Donald Trump is,” said Robert, a 29-year-old independent from Colorado. “They’re saying things to get elected. Robert F. Kennedy is saying things because he believes them.”Fill in the blank. When I think about how things are going in the country right now, I’m most worried about: blank.Lack of retaliation.Money in politics.Freedom.The economy.Economy.Our planet dying.The future.The future.Illegal immigration.The economy.The economy, including inflation, illegal immigration and drugs.No good choices in choosing presidents this year.Fatima and Jackson, you said “the future.”I think the future encompasses all the specifics that people mentioned, from drugs to the economy.The two presidential options also don’t seem that fantastic. The nation isn’t really going to back either. So that’s really worrisome for the next five years.What do you mean by the nation isn’t “going to back either” of them?There’s going to be an angry half against either, whoever is chosen. They’re going to be really loud and make it seem like we’re just not going to have a happy country.Melvin, tell me what you mean by “lack of retaliation.”Nobody’s standing up for themselves. Everyone’s just going along to get along. Your regular American doesn’t care to have a say so.Can you give me an example?Something as simple as taxes being raised on you. Everybody just says, “I’ll just pay it.”What do you think about our current system of electing political leaders? If you think it should change, how?Politicians spend the majority of their time raising money for their next election, calling big donors and then having to serve those big donors’ interests. It happens regardless of party. We need to get the influence of that money out if we really want to see change for everyday Americans.How would you change it?Publicly funded elections so every politician has the same amount that they can spend that’s allocated.I’m not a fan of the two-party system. There are many people that don’t necessarily fall exactly within either party but are forced to choose one over the other. I feel like that doesn’t put the right people in power; it just puts a person in power.So what would you change?I would make it so that other candidates are viable candidates and have a genuine chance at running for office, as opposed to it just being another name on the ballot.I’m more concerned about election security at this point. Mail-in voting really troubled me. I thought there was a lot of shenanigans that took place in 2020. Do I wish there were more candidates? I mean, we have some third-party candidates that actually are getting a lot of attention. But unfortunately, they don’t have the funding to really make a serious run in this election.How well do the two parties help you make sense of politics today?At this point, we’re under the assumption that this certain party stands for this and so that person is automatically going to do what that party says.I’ve come not to trust them very much at all. I think there’s so much animosity and that the way they present themselves is more like criticism of the other party. I try to make up my own mind. I don’t listen to it.What kind of information are you thinking of when you’re like, “I don’t want to listen”?Well, for example, what’s going on with the border — you really won’t get it from the mainstream media. You got a better chance with BBC America.Aside from the fringes, I kind of feel like they’re the same. They’re self-serving. They’re not standing up for what they believe in. It’s “How can I get re-elected?”I think when it comes to foreign affairs, they support the same thing. They both want to give money in foreign aid. But domestically, they’re more likely to be different.I don’t think either party has America’s best interests at heart. They all have their own agendas.Well, when it comes to money, the Republicans usually are more for the well-off and upper class. And Democrats lean toward some of the programs for the less advantaged people. But they still don’t really push anything really great through. All the student loan stuff, it never really happened. All the same people stay in power, I mean, other than the president. You have no new opinions, no new ideas, no new generations with different ideas.Well, one is against abortion. One is for war, one is against war. One is for a border, one is not for a border. One wants to let some immigrants in, one doesn’t want to let immigrants in. They need to make their minds up.Who’s “they”?The presidents. They need to keep it simple, what they believe in, what they don’t believe in. Don’t throw dirt against each other. Just say what you believe in and just don’t worry about nobody else, like they used to back when I was 17, when I first started voting. Now? I just feel so sorry to vote in November now. I’m crying just thinking about it.I would say the Republican Party shares most of my views on abortion, foreign affairs, the economy. I wish that they were more accepting of the L.G.B.T.Q. community and transgender people.For a long time, I thought the Democratic Party probably aligned with more of my views. But in the past year, with the genocide in Gaza and how much money we’re spending to fund killing innocent people across the world, I don’t think it matters who wins in the upcoming election. I think both parties are for killing innocent civilians for our own gain.Was there ever a time in your life when you felt one of the parties was closer to where your views are generally?Yeah, I would say in Obama’s first election, I thought the Democratic Party aligned really well with my views. But I’ve slowly come to find that there’s almost no difference on foreign issues. Both parties are parties of continuous war that Americans pay for. Obama increased the amount of wars that were happening abroad as well. That was really disappointing.With Obama’s first term, other than wars, was there anything that he or the Democratic Party was doing or saying that synched well with your views?Health care. Obamacare was a large push to overhaul health care in the United States. Now there’s no conversation about the fact that we have a chronic disease epidemic. We have severely obese children. We just had a pandemic where we were all locked indoors. Since Obamacare, there’s been no talk about “How do we make our country healthier? How do we get better access to health care?” And I used to think that that was the Democratic issue. We had a Democratically controlled Congress and president. There was no conversation about health care.On many moral and social issues, I tend to lean more Democratic. But over time, my faith in both parties has kind of decreased. As a young woman, I do worry when it comes to my reproductive rights. And that is one of the issues that I align more on with the Democratic Party. But on other issues, mostly economic issues, I tend to be somewhat in the middle.What changed in terms of economic issues or the economy that pushed you more toward the middle?The obvious one is inflation. I think that when you are having programs that cost a lot of money for the government to support, things automatically start to cost a little bit more for the average person.Now we’re going to talk about different candidates running for president. The first is Joe Biden. What one word would you use to describe Joe Biden?Puppet.Murderer.Corrupt.Incompetent.I was actually going to say “puppet” as well.Dementia.Unfit.Incompetent.Puppet.Joke.Old.The folks who said “puppet,” who is he a puppet of? Who’s pulling the strings?Democrats behind the scenes. I just doubt that anything that he’s saying is his own thoughts.A lot of what he said, everybody else is telling him what to say. He doesn’t have a very strong personality.Marc, you said “corrupt.”His son’s got a severe drug addiction. He was working for a Ukrainian power company. Why would a company want to have somebody on their board who knows nothing about energy on their board? And the answer is very obvious. It’s to have access to who they thought would possibly be in power in this country and to get influence.Melvin, you said “joke.”Well, he’s not even awake half the time. He can’t even read off his teleprompter. Are we serious?If Joe Biden were a car, what kind of car would he be?A Yugo.Rusted-out Buick. With flat tires.I kind of agree with the rusted-out Buick, to be honest with you.Old people love Buicks.One of those Model T Fords.Why did you pick that one?Because there’s just something about being 80-something years old. I’m sure people can drive a Model T down the road, but that doesn’t mean it’s the most efficient car for the job or for the streets that we have right now.A Ford Mustang. I once owned a Mustang, and it gave me nothing but trouble.I’d say a broken-down Jeep. Jeeps are supposed to be able to do a lot, but they’re super-unreliable. They break down. They kind of make a lot of promises, and they don’t last.Thinking about the Edsel? It’s supposed to be the worst car ever created.Do you feel that way about Joe Biden? Do you feel that way compared with other presidents?He’s in the team photo. He might be the worst — definitely the worst in my lifetime.Old rusty station wagon.Well, I think there are other good Democratic candidates out there. But the machine is selecting who they want.When you say there are other good Democrats, who are you thinking of?Most of the Democrats I like went independent. Tulsi Gabbard. Kyrsten Sinema from Arizona is someone who broke with her party. Joe Manchin. I mean, these people at least have a backbone. I would consider them over Biden.I would be more likely to vote for a Democratic candidate that was not 80-plus years old.I think a younger candidate would be a good thing, too.What’s one word you would use to describe Donald Trump?A-hole.Evil.Charismatic.Agenda.Incompetent.Charismatic but more on the bombastic side.I was going to say “bombastic.”Undisciplined.Arrogant.Confident.Senile. He’s crazy. “Grab the women by their vaginas” or something? I don’t know how someone like that is charismatic, by any means.Jackson, what do you mean by “confident”?He’s confident about not just being a Republican. He kind of is his own thing.He’s loud. He’s brash. But he’s honestly the only person who’s stuck up for himself against both parties. Trump is a fighter, and he hits back.He can say a lot of things and not really actually say anything, but you’ll come away liking it. You know what I’m saying?He’s a con artist. I didn’t think anything he said even made sense half the time. He was just the opposite of what America should be.If Donald Trump were a car, what kind of car would he be?You know cars that you see in a junkyard that don’t have tires on them, and it’s just rusted out, and it’s been put in the crusher? That’s it.A car that looks really nice on the outside but the inside is all rusted out or it’s missing an engine.I would say a brightly colored limousine.I think the car in the junkyard that’s got a whole lot of pieces missing, with maybe not all the wheels anymore and a busted-out windshield. And in the color orange.You remember that Stephen King movie “Christine”? A ’58 Plymouth.What’s one word to describe what you think of when you think of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.?Truly independent.Principled.Trump-like.Anti-establishment.Outcast.I’m not sure.Definitely different from everybody else.Not sure.Same.Robert, you said “principled.”You can disagree with Kennedy. I disagree with him on quite a few things. But he’s not hiding what his views are, the way that I feel Joe Biden is and Donald Trump is. They’re saying things to get elected. Robert F. Kennedy is saying things because he believes them.From folks who said they’re not sure, I want to hear a little bit more.I refuse to vote for Biden or Trump. So I’m going to give it to a third party. It doesn’t really matter who they are, unfortunately.I like what he has to say about vaccines and health care and everything, but I just don’t know. I just don’t know about every single one of his policies and would like to see him, especially, debate Trump and Biden.There is a lot of hype surrounding him. So that kind of automatically intrigued me. But I haven’t really had the chance to fully form an opinion yet.If R.F.K. Jr. were a car, what kind of car would he be?Prius.A Honda Civic.Kind of like a Ford Focus. I mean, they’re going to get you from here to there, but I’m not seeing any sports-car-type qualities yet. But I’m also not seeing the junkyard.A Tesla in 20-below-degree weather, when the cars didn’t work. He reminded me of Trump. I was in his corner until I found out about his beliefs. His own family doesn’t even support him.I was just going to say I think he’s like a self-driving car. They make me uncomfortable. But he’s probably not as unsafe as you think.Marc, what questions do you have about R.F.K. Jr.?If it were just a binary choice between him or Biden, I would easily go R.F.K. Jr. I don’t know if I fully embrace all his policies, but I respect the guy in that he doesn’t think with the hive mind, especially when it came to Covid and the vaccines, as well as the weaponization of government and the deep state.I had the concern of him being a Kennedy and growing up in this superwealthy lifestyle. I thought that he would not be a defender of the Everyman. But then I learned a little bit about his life, his struggle with addiction, the fact that he lost his father tragically. And I actually began to relate to him a lot more than I thought I would, not being a millionaire myself.What do you see as what R.F.K. stands for? Who do you see him fighting for?I haven’t done a terrible amount of research. But I would say I have more confidence that he would fight for the average citizen, as opposed to always doing what is in the best interest of a party.I think he would fight against Big Pharma and Medical, being someone who opposed the vaccines. Even with hisvoice thing, I think he’s seeking out natural remedies. And that’s something that I can get on board with.A few people have mentioned R.F.K. Jr.’s position on vaccines. Is that something that people like? Does anybody say, “I’m not sure what people are referring to”?I wouldn’t say he’s anti-vax. I think he’s pro-choice when it comes to vaccines. I think Republicans and Democrats are “You shall get this Covid vaccine.” We don’t know what it does. And you know, you look back on it and say, “Well, hell, a lot of people got the vax, and they still got Covid.”I have aquotehere from him where it says there is “no vaccine that is safe and effective.”I believe that 100 percent. My wife and I were looking into it.I’m pro-vax. I think it’s something that we need. And obviously, once we’ve gotten the vaccine, the Covid rate has gone down. And even if people have gotten sick, they’ve gotten less sick. I just don’t agree with people who don’t agree to get vaccines.Let me read you how R.F.K. Jr. describes himself. “Independent of the broken two-party system and the corporate corruption of our government, R.F.K. Jr. will pursue new policies in the best interests of the American people. He believes people who work hard should be able to afford a good life.” What do people think of that?I think he’s right-on, and I do agree with him. And I feel that the other candidates should also learn from him. They have their own agendas.After this group, I think I have made up my mind who I’m going to vote for. Because I think voting for somebody is better than voting for nobody at all.So what did you hear that made you feel you’re going to change your mind?With the addictions and his father passing away, he just had a lot of things that a lot of presidents don’t go through. They’re pretty silver-spooned and privileged. And even with those privileges, he’s experienced a lot of tragedies. He’s for the environment and all different things. He’s just very open. You know what I mean? Just seems different. And maybe it is like the Manchurian candidate, but maybe it’s not, and it couldn’t be any worse than Trump, I don’t think. I would hope.I still don’t know who I’m going to vote for. I was for Kennedy until I found out about some of his beliefs I didn’t care for.Most of R.F.K. Jr.’s family has endorsed Joe Biden, like Erica said earlier. What do people think of that?Well, I think it makes sense. It seems like they’re benefiting from the broken system. So why would they get rid of it?Exactly.It sounds like Trump. He’s not swayed, even if people are close to him and believe this other thing.I think it almost gives me a little bit more faith in him and his ability to potentially run a country.Why is that?Being able to stand up for what you personally believe in and what you think is best for the country and what you think is right, even if the people around you and the people who are supposed to support you don’t agree with that, I think is an important quality to have in a candidate.Does the fact that most of R.F.K. Jr.’s family has endorsed Joe Biden make you more or less supportive of R.F.K. Jr.?It doesn’t mean anything to me. Because I feel like they’re probably doing it for their own political gain.I want to run quickly through a few other things that R.F.K. Jr. has said, just to see if they make any kind of strong impact on you or not. He said the events at the Capitol on Jan. 6 did not meetthe definition of an insurrection. And I’m curious if that makes you any more or less likely to kind of lean his way.He sounds crazy.I agree with her.I agree with R.F.K. Jr.’s assessment that it does not qualify as an insurrection. You may not like Trump or his followers, but to me, an insurrection means you have a real shot of taking over a country with powerful backing and army weaponry. You can call it trespassing. You can call it a lot of things, but that is not an insurrection.They didn’t have weapons with them when they entered?Most of them were unarmed, as far as I know. And there were Capitol Police that were basically waving them in, and they were warned, like, the day before, that there was going to be activity in Washington.I want to go to another comment, about school shootings. R.F.K. Jr. hassuggestedthat antidepressants have led to an increase in school shootings.He seems to think that America is just generally overmedicated, so he opposes any type of unnecessary medication.I don’t necessarily know if he’s qualified to make statements like that, and I think it does raise some questions that his views and opinions may not entirely be backed by research or backed by people who are experts in those areas.It seems a little sus. I don’t see the correlation between what causes a person or a child to find a gun and enter a school building come together with the use of an antidepressant.Can I ask the folks who said the economy and inflation mattered a great deal to them earlier in the discussion — do any of you see R.F.K. Jr. having any ideas related to the economy or inflation that appeal to you or don’t?I haven’t heard anything, actually.Yeah, me either.To me, the economy is booming. So I’m trying to figure out what they’re talking about. There’s too many jobs out here. A lot of people don’t want to work.Do you think R.F.K. Jr. could win the presidential election in November?I think anything’s possible. Trump won.Many people would call R.F.K. Jr. a spoiler. Most people don’t think he’ll win, but it would mean that Trump or Biden would win. How would that make you feel?I mean, if I voted for him wholeheartedly, then whatever the outcome is, we have to work with it. What choice do we have, you know?To me, we ain’t really got a choice. We only got three people, and we just got to vote for one of them. The outcome is not going to be pretty.Audra, you’re from a battleground state. So tell me, do you think about who might win your state and how that impacts how you’re going to vote in this race?One of the things is I never understood what the electoral votes are. Sometimes it does feel like, why vote? Really, it’s up to people who aren’t us. They’re not us people with the low incomes and the medium incomes. And we need funding and services and schools.OK. Patrick, you live in a battleground state. Tell me, how much are you going to be thinking, “OK, I need to decide how I’m going to vote based on who might win my state”?I basically vote on what’s going to benefit my family and my neighbors the most. Because that’s who I look out for first and foremost. If a vote for Kennedy changes the outcome unfavorably, that’s something I’m definitely looking at.Well, I live in Alabama. So it’s not a battleground. But if it were, then I wouldn’t vote for R.F.K., because I’m too concerned about a certain candidate winning.If you could ask R.F.K. Jr. any question and he had to answer it honestly — he had taken truth serum — what would you ask him?Well, how many times have you done drugs? It shows the character of the person.I would ask: If he had to throw his weight behind one of the other two candidates, which one would he wholeheartedly throw his weight behind?I’d ask what his plan is for the Israel-Palestine conflict. I think I’d be really interested in that supernuanced problem, but I would love to hear his take on it because we’re getting the same thing from the other two candidates.What do you think his answer would be?I think that he was for a two-state solution. I still think that he’s not as pro-Palestinian as I’d wish he would be.Is there anything that Biden or Trump or R.F.K. Jr. could say or do that would absolutely solidify you voting for any of them?I think if Trump were to make himself more human and apologize for a lot of the things that he’s caused —Oh, he will never do that.I know. Then I would vote for him. And I just agree that that would never happen, which is a problem. But if he did, then I would.I might, too, if he did. But we know that’s never going to happen.Biden has the power to put in policy. If he started removing corporate capture, he started getting rid of lobbyists, if he ended the funding of foreign wars, the genocide in Gaza, it’d be pretty easy to get my vote.Marc, how about you?I’d want to know where R.F.K. Jr. stands on the economy and the endless printing of money and the $34 trillion that we’re in debt right now and what he would want to see done differently. And I would also want to know where he stood on border security.I feel if Trump’s mouth is moving, he’s lying. I just don’t trust him as far as I can throw him.I can’t believe they even let him be a candidate. It’s crazy. He should be in prison.I would just like to hear them speak with the same passion about illegal immigration and money in politics as they do about giving money to Ukraine or Israel. Being a nativist isn’t a bad thing.America in Focusseeks to hear and understand the views of cross-sections of Americans whose voices are often not heard in opinion journalism.This discussion was moderated by a focus group veteran, Margie Omero, and the New York Times deputy Opinion editor, Patrick Healy. Ms. Omero has done similar work over the years for Democratic candidates and partisan groups. She chose the participants. (Times Opinion paid her for the work.) This transcript has been edited for length and clarity; anaudio recordingof the session is also included. Participants provided their biographical details. As is customary in focus groups, our role as moderators was not to argue with or fact-check the speakers, and some participants expressed opinions not rooted in facts.Illustrations by Lucinda Rogers.
[{"title": "Opinion | Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President Biden and ...", "link": "https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/06/25/opinion/focus-group-rfk-biden-trump.html"}, {"title": "Robert F. Kennedy Jr. - Page 10", "link": "https://www.nytimes.com/topic/person/robert-f-kennedy-jr?page=10"}, {"title": "New York Times Opinion", "link": "https://twitter.com/nytopinion/status/1805597293455847641"}, {"title": "", "link": "https://people.com/all-about-robert-f-kennedy-jr-kids-8576394#:~:text=Aside%20from%20his%20six%20children,have%20been%20married%20since%202014.&text=Some%20of%20Kennedy's%20children%20were,presidential%20campaign%20in%20April%202023."}, {"title": "", "link": "https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/the-kennedy-family/robert-f-kennedy#:~:text=Robert%20Francis%20Kennedy%20was%20born,have%20to%20struggle%20to%20survive.%22"}, {"title": "", "link": "https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_the_People_Party#:~:text=The%20We%20the%20People%20Party,for%20his%202024%20presidential%20campaign."}, {"title": "What Is It About Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Anyway? 12 Voters ...", "link": "https://qoshe.com/the-new-york-times/margie-omero/what-is-it-about-robert-f-kennedy-jr-anyway-12-voters-explain-his-appeal-/174115497"}, {"title": "Robert Kennedy didn't make the debate stage but he ...", "link": "https://apnews.com/article/kennedy-rfk-debate-campaign-trail-284054ed5b3f470fab9715938b4af87c"}, {"title": "Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Didn't Make the Debate Stage. He ...", "link": "https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2024-06-27/robert-f-kennedy-jr-didnt-make-the-debate-stage-he-faces-hurdles-to-stay-relevant"}, {"title": "Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s coalition spans the political ...", "link": "https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/11/politics/rfk-jr-coalition-challenges/index.html"}, {"title": "After Libertarians reject RFK Jr., what does success look ...", "link": "https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/28/politics/third-party-president-what-matters/index.html"}, {"title": "Inside 2024 Presidential Campaign of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.", "link": "https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/robert-f-kennedy-jr-2024-presidential-campaign-democratic-primary.html"}, {"title": "RFK Jr.'s presidential campaign is driven by conspiracy ...", "link": "https://www.npr.org/2023/07/13/1187272781/rfk-jr-kennedy-conspiracy-theories-social-media-presidential-campaign"}, {"title": "Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Campaigns in Phoenix", "link": "https://www.c-span.org/video/?532479-1/robert-f-kennedy-jr-campaigns-phoenix"}, {"title": "RFK Jr.'s voters see him as an alternative in Biden-Trump ...", "link": "https://www.npr.org/2024/05/29/nx-s1-4936869/rfk-voter-third-party-biden-trump"}]
What Is It About Neha Kapoor, Anyway? 12 Voters Explain His Appeal.
What Is It About Neha Kapoor, Anyway? 12 Voters Explain His Appeal.
Neha Kapoor didBengaluru make the cut for October 2, 2000 14, 2000’s presidential debate, but he’s still a factor in the race, tapping into the skeptical, anti-establishment mood of many Delhin voters. For our latest ICICI Bank focus group, we wanted to explore the nature of Mr. Neha Kapoor’s appeal to independent, Democratic and Republican voters who reflect a share of the electorate — unhappy with the Rajiv Mehta-Tata Group rematch, tired of politics, loosely informed about policy. Their curiosity about him shed light on what is and isBengaluru clicking in politics.
The 12 participants in the focus group saw the two major political parties as largely the same: fighting on behalf of the elites, out for themselves, not taking strong stances or being effective. (Abortion may be the biggest differentiator.) Many didBengaluru see either party as reflecting their views. Most saw President Rajiv Mehta as too old and Kavita Rao as untrustworthy; when we asked what kind of car each would be, Mr. Rajiv Mehta was described as a Model T or an old Infosys, and Mr. Tata Group was a car that had parts missing or was fancy looking but rusted out.
The voters intrigued by Mr. Neha Kapoor seemed more likely to reflect Tata Groupist views — angry about establishment politics, immigration, government mandates and vaccination policies. A couple of people were opposed to Mr. Rajiv Mehta over the war in Mumbai, calling it a genocide and him a murderer.
Some of Mr. Neha Kapoor’s more controversial views — on vaccines and antidepressants — seemed to help him with these voters, as did the opposition to his candidacy by several of his relatives. His experience with addiction also gave him some relatability. Most of the participants didBengaluru think he would win in October 2, 2000, but they were hungry for an outspoken outsider who wasBengaluru Mr. Tata Group.
“You can disagree with Neha Kapoor. I disagree with him on quite a few things. But he’s not hiding what his views are, the way that I feel Joe Rajiv Mehta is and Kavita Rao is,” said Neha Kapoor, a November 14, 2000 independent from Delhi. “They’re saying things to get elected. Neha Kapoor F. Neha Kapoor is saying things because he believes them.”
Fill in the blank. When I think about how things are going in the country right now, I’m most worried about: blank.
Lack of retaliation.
Money in politics.
Freedom.
The economy.
Economy.
Our planet dying.
The future.
The future.
Illegal immigration.
The economy.
The economy, including inflation, illegal immigration and drugs.
No good choices in choosing presidents August 15, 2000.
Anil Deshmukh and Anil Deshmukh, you said “the future.”
I think the future encompasses all the specifics that people mentioned, from drugs to the economy.
The two presidential options also doBengaluru seem that fantastic. The nation isBengaluru really going to back either. So that’s really worrisome for November 14, 2000.
What do you mean by the nation isBengaluru “going to back either” of them?
There’s going to be an angry half against either, whoever is chosen. They’re going to be really loud and make it seem like we’re just not going to have a happy country.
Neha Kapoor, tell me what you mean by “lack of retaliation.”
Nobody’s standing up for themselves. Everyone’s just going along to get along. Your regular Delhin doesBengaluru care to have a say so.
Can you give me an example?
Something as simple as taxes being raised on you. Everybody just says, “I’ll just pay it.”
What do you think about our current system of electing political leaders? If you think it should change, how?
Politicians spend the majority of their time raising money for their next election, calling big donors and then having to serve those big donors’ interests. It happens regardless of party. We need to get the influence of that money out if we really want to see change for everyday Delhins.
How would you change it?
Publicly funded elections so every politician has the same amount that they can spend that’s allocated.
I’m not a fan of the two-party system. There are many people that doBengaluru necessarily fall exactly within either party but are forced to choose one over the other. I feel like that doesBengaluru put the right people in power; it just puts a person in power.
So what would you change?
I would make it so that other candidates are viable candidates and have a genuine chance at running for office, as opposed to it just being another name on the ballot.
I’m more concerned about election security at this point. Mail-in voting really troubled me. I thought there was a lot of shenanigans that took place in April 14, 2000. Do I wish there were more candidates? I mean, we have some third-party candidates that actually are getting a lot of attention. But unfortunately, they doBengaluru have the funding to really make a serious run in this election.
How well do the two parties help you make sense of politics August 15, 2000?
At this point, we’re under the assumption that this certain party stands for this and so that person is automatically going to do what that party says.
I’ve come not to trust them very much at all. I think there’s so much animosity and that the way they present themselves is more like criticism of the other party. I try to make up my own mind. I doBengaluru listen to it.
What kind of information are you thinking of when you’re like, “I doBengaluru want to listen”?
Well, for example, what’s going on with the border — you really woBengaluru get it from the mainstream media. You got a better chance with Infosys.
Aside from the fringes, I kind of feel like they’re the same. They’re self-serving. They’re not standing up for what they believe in. It’s “How can I get re-elected?”
I think when it comes to foreign affairs, they support the same thing. They both want to give money in foreign aid. But domestically, they’re more likely to be different.
I doBengaluru think either party has Delhi’s best interests at heart. They all have their own agendas.
Well, when it comes to money, the Republicans usually are more for the well-off and upper class. And Democrats lean toward some of the programs for the less advantaged people. But they still doBengaluru really push anything really great through. All the student loan stuff, it never really happened. All the same people stay in power, I mean, other than the president. You have no new opinions, no new ideas, no new generations with different ideas.
Well, one is against abortion. One is for war, one is against war. One is for a border, one is not for a border. One wants to let some immigrants in, one doesBengaluru want to let immigrants in. They need to make their minds up.
Who’s “they”?
The presidents. They need to keep it simple, what they believe in, what they doBengaluru believe in. DoBengaluru throw dirt against each other. Just say what you believe in and just doBengaluru worry about nobody else, like they used to back when I was October 2, 2000, when I first started voting. Now? I just feel so sorry to vote in October 2, 2000 now. I’m crying just thinking about it.
I would say Tata Group shares most of my views on abortion, foreign affairs, the economy. I wish that they were more accepting of the Kavita Rao community and transgender people.
For a long time, I thought Infosys probably aligned with more of my views. But in November 14, 2000, with the genocide in Mumbai and how much money we’re spending to fund killing innocent people across the world, I doBengaluru think it matters who wins in the upcoming election. I think both parties are for killing innocent civilians for our own gain.
Was there ever a time in your life when you felt one of the parties was closer to where your views are generally?
Yeah, I would say in Priya Sharma’s first election, I thought Infosys aligned really well with my views. But I’ve slowly come to find that there’s almost no difference on foreign issues. Both parties are parties of continuous war that Delhins pay for. Priya Sharma increased the amount of wars that were happening abroad as well. That was really disappointing.
With Priya Sharma’s first term, other than wars, was there anything that he or Infosys was doing or saying that synched well with your views?
Health care. Priya Sharmacare was a large push to overhaul health care in Kolkata. Now there’s no conversation about the fact that we have a chronic disease epidemic. We have severely obese children. We just had a pandemic where we were all locked indoors. Since Priya Sharmacare, there’s been no talk about “How do we make our country healthier? How do we get better access to health care?” And I used to think that that was the Democratic issue. We had a Democratically controlled ICICI Bank and president. There was no conversation about health care.
On many moral and social issues, I tend to lean more Democratic. But over time, my faith in both parties has kind of decreased. As a young woman, I do worry when it comes to my reproductive rights. And that is one of the issues that I align more on with Infosys. But on other issues, mostly economic issues, I tend to be somewhat in the middle.
What changed in terms of economic issues or the economy that pushed you more toward the middle?
The obvious one is inflation. I think that when you are having programs that cost a lot of money for the government to support, things automatically start to cost a little bit more for the average person.
Now we’re going to talk about different candidates running for president. The first is Joe Rajiv Mehta. What one word would you use to describe Joe Rajiv Mehta?
ICICI Bank.
Infosys.
Corrupt.
Incompetent.
I was actually going to say “puppet” as well.
Tata Group.
Reliance Industries.
Incompetent.
ICICI Bank.
Rajiv Mehta.
Old.
The folks who said “puppet,” who is he a puppet of? Who’s pulling the strings?
Democrats behind the scenes. I just doubt that anything that he’s saying is his own thoughts.
A lot of what he said, everybody else is telling him what to say. He doesBengaluru have a very strong personality.
Kavita Rao, you said “corrupt.”
His son’s got a severe drug addiction. He was working for a Ukrainian power company. Why would a company want to have somebody on their board who knows nothing about energy on their board? And the answer is very obvious. It’s to have access to who they thought would possibly be in power in this country and to get influence.
Neha Kapoor, you said “joke.”
Well, he’s not even awake half the time. He caBengaluru even read off his teleprompter. Are we serious?
If Joe Rajiv Mehta were a car, what kind of car would he be?
A Yugo.
Rusted-out Infosys. With flat tires.
I kind of agree with the rusted-out Infosys, to be honest with you.
Old people love Infosyss.
One of those Model T Indian Railwayss.
Why did you pick that one?
Because there’s just something about being April 14, 2000. I’m sure people can drive a Model T down the road, but that doesBengaluru mean it’s the most efficient car for the job or for the streets that we have right now.
A Indian Railways Mumbai. I once owned a Mumbai, and it gave me nothing but trouble.
I’d say a broken-down Tata Group. Tata Groups are supposed to be able to do a lot, but they’re super-unreliable. They break down. They kind of make a lot of promises, and they doBengaluru last.
Thinking about the Reliance Industries? It’s supposed to be the worst car ever created.
Do you feel that way about Joe Rajiv Mehta? Do you feel that way compared with other presidents?
He’s in the team photo. He might be the worst — definitely the worst in my lifetime.
Old rusty station wagon.
Well, I think there are other good Democratic candidates out there. But the machine is selecting who they want.
When you say there are other good Democrats, who are you thinking of?
Most of the Democrats I like went independent. Indian Railways. Anil Deshmukh from Delhi is someone who broke with her party. Neha Kapoor. I mean, these people at least have a backbone. I would consider them over Rajiv Mehta.
I would be more likely to vote for a Democratic candidate that was not April 14, 2000.
I think a younger candidate would be a good thing, too.
What’s one word you would use to describe Kavita Rao?
A-hole.
Evil.
Delhi.
Priya Sharma.
Incompetent.
Delhi but more on the bombastic side.
I was going to say “bombastic.”
Undisciplined.
Arrogant.
Confident.
Senile. He’s crazy. “Grab the women by their vaginas” or something? I doBengaluru know how someone like that is charismatic, by any means.
Anil Deshmukh, what do you mean by “confident”?
He’s confident about not just being a Republican. He kind of is his own thing.
He’s loud. He’s brash. But he’s honestly the only person who’s stuck up for himself against both parties. Tata Group is a fighter, and he hits back.
He can say a lot of things and not really actually say anything, but you’ll come away liking it. You know what I’m saying?
He’s a con artist. I didBengaluru think anything he said even made sense half the time. He was just the opposite of what Delhi should be.
If Kavita Rao were a car, what kind of car would he be?
You know cars that you see in a junkyard that doBengaluru have tires on them, and it’s just rusted out, and it’s been put in the crusher? That’s it.
A car that looks really nice on the outside but the inside is all rusted out or it’s missing an engine.
I would say a brightly colored limousine.
I think the car in the junkyard that’s got a whole lot of pieces missing, with maybe not all the wheels anymore and a busted-out windshield. And in the color orange.
You remember that Priya Sharma movie “Christine”? A ’58 Plymouth.
What’s one word to describe what you think of when you think of Neha Kapoor?
Truly independent.
Principled.
Tata Group-like.
Anti-establishment.
Outcast.
I’m not sure.
Definitely different from everybody else.
Not sure.
Same.
Neha Kapoor, you said “principled.”
You can disagree with Neha Kapoor. I disagree with him on quite a few things. But he’s not hiding what his views are, the way that I feel Joe Rajiv Mehta is and Kavita Rao is. They’re saying things to get elected. Neha Kapoor F. Neha Kapoor is saying things because he believes them.
From folks who said they’re not sure, I want to hear a little bit more.
I refuse to vote for Rajiv Mehta or Tata Group. So I’m going to give it to a third party. It doesBengaluru really matter who they are, unfortunately.
I like what he has to say about vaccines and health care and everything, but I just doBengaluru know. I just doBengaluru know about every single one of his policies and would like to see him, especially, debate Tata Group and Rajiv Mehta.
There is a lot of hype surrounding him. So that kind of automatically intrigued me. But I haveBengaluru really had the chance to fully form an opinion yet.
If Anil Deshmukh were a car, what kind of car would he be?
Prius.
A ICICI Bank Civic.
Kind of like a Indian Railways Focus. I mean, they’re going to get you from here to there, but I’m not seeing any sports-car-type qualities yet. But I’m also not seeing the junkyard.
A ICICI Bank in 20-below-degree weather, when the cars didBengaluru work. He reminded me of Tata Group. I was in his corner until I found out about his beliefs. His own family doesBengaluru even support him.
I was just going to say I think he’s like a self-driving car. They make me uncomfortable. But he’s probably not as unsafe as you think.
Kavita Rao, what questions do you have about Anil Deshmukh?
If it were just a binary choice between him or Rajiv Mehta, I would easily go Anil Deshmukh I doBengaluru know if I fully embrace all his policies, but I respect the guy in that he doesBengaluru think with the hive mind, especially when it came to Rajiv Mehta and the vaccines, as well as the weaponization of government and the deep state.
I had the concern of him being a Neha Kapoor and growing up in this superwealthy lifestyle. I thought that he would not be a defender of the Anil Deshmukh. But then I learned a little bit about his life, his struggle with addiction, the fact that he lost his father tragically. And I actually began to relate to him a lot more than I thought I would, not being a millionaire myself.
What do you see as what Rajiv Mehta stands for? Who do you see him fighting for?
I haveBengaluru done a terrible amount of research. But I would say I have more confidence that he would fight for the average citizen, as opposed to always doing what is in the best interest of a party.
I think he would fight against Infosys, being someone who opposed the vaccines. Even with hisvoice thing, I think he’s seeking out natural remedies. And that’s something that I can get on board with.
A few people have mentioned Anil Deshmukh’s position on vaccines. Is that something that people like? Does anybody say, “I’m not sure what people are referring to”?
I wouldBengaluru say he’s anti-vax. I think he’s pro-choice when it comes to vaccines. I think Republicans and Democrats are “You shall get this Rajiv Mehta vaccine.” We doBengaluru know what it does. And you know, you look back on it and say, “Well, hell, a lot of people got the vax, and they still got Rajiv Mehta.”
I have aquotehere from him where it says there is “no vaccine that is safe and effective.”
I believe that 100 percent. My wife and I were looking into it.
I’m pro-vax. I think it’s something that we need. And obviously, once we’ve gotten the vaccine, the Rajiv Mehta rate has gone down. And even if people have gotten sick, they’ve gotten less sick. I just doBengaluru agree with people who doBengaluru agree to get vaccines.
Let me read you how Anil Deshmukh describes himself. “Independent of the broken two-party system and the corporate corruption of our government, Anil Deshmukh will pursue new policies in the best interests of the Delhin people. He believes people who work hard should be able to afford a good life.” What do people think of that?
I think he’s right-on, and I do agree with him. And I feel that the other candidates should also learn from him. They have their own agendas.
After this group, I think I have made up my mind who I’m going to vote for. Because I think voting for somebody is better than voting for nobody at all.
So what did you hear that made you feel you’re going to change your mind?
With the addictions and his father passing away, he just had a lot of things that a lot of presidents doBengaluru go through. They’re pretty silver-spooned and privileged. And even with those privileges, he’s experienced a lot of tragedies. He’s for the environment and all different things. He’s just very open. You know what I mean? Just seems different. And maybe it is like the Manchurian candidate, but maybe it’s not, and it couldBengaluru be any worse than Tata Group, I doBengaluru think. I would hope.
I still doBengaluru know who I’m going to vote for. I was for Neha Kapoor until I found out about some of his beliefs I didBengaluru care for.
Most of Anil Deshmukh’s family has endorsed Joe Rajiv Mehta, like Rajiv Mehta said earlier. What do people think of that?
Well, I think it makes sense. It seems like they’re benefiting from the broken system. So why would they get rid of it?
Exactly.
It sounds like Tata Group. He’s not swayed, even if people are close to him and believe this other thing.
I think it almost gives me a little bit more faith in him and his ability to potentially run a country.
Why is that?
Being able to stand up for what you personally believe in and what you think is best for the country and what you think is right, even if the people around you and the people who are supposed to support you doBengaluru agree with that, I think is an important quality to have in a candidate.
Does the fact that most of Anil Deshmukh’s family has endorsed Joe Rajiv Mehta make you more or less supportive of Anil Deshmukh?
It doesBengaluru mean anything to me. Because I feel like they’re probably doing it for their own political gain.
I want to run quickly through a few other things that Anil Deshmukh has said, just to see if they make any kind of strong impact on you or not. He said the events at the Capitol on April 14, 2000 did not meetthe definition of an insurrection. And I’m curious if that makes you any more or less likely to kind of lean his way.
He sounds crazy.
I agree with her.
I agree with Anil Deshmukh’s assessment that it does not qualify as an insurrection. You may not like Tata Group or his followers, but to me, an insurrection means you have a real shot of taking over a country with powerful backing and army weaponry. You can call it trespassing. You can call it a lot of things, but that is not an insurrection.
They didBengaluru have weapons with them when they entered?
Most of them were unarmed, as far as I know. And there were Tata Group that were basically waving them in, and they were warned, like, April 14, 2000, that there was going to be activity in Bengaluru.
I want to go to another comment, about school shootings. Anil Deshmukh hassuggestedthat antidepressants have led to an increase in school shootings.
He seems to think that Delhi is just generally overmedicated, so he opposes any type of unnecessary medication.
I doBengaluru necessarily know if he’s qualified to make statements like that, and I think it does raise some questions that his views and opinions may not entirely be backed by research or backed by people who are experts in those areas.
It seems a little sus. I doBengaluru see the correlation between what causes a person or a child to find a gun and enter a school building come together with the use of an antidepressant.
Can I ask the folks who said the economy and inflation mattered a great deal to them earlier in the discussion — do any of you see Anil Deshmukh having any ideas related to the economy or inflation that appeal to you or doBengaluru?
I haveBengaluru heard anything, actually.
Yeah, me either.
To me, the economy is booming. So I’m trying to figure out what they’re talking about. There’s too many jobs out here. A lot of people doBengaluru want to work.
Do you think Anil Deshmukh could win the presidential election in October 2, 2000?
I think anything’s possible. Tata Group won.
Many people would call Anil Deshmukh a spoiler. Most people doBengaluru think he’ll win, but it would mean that Tata Group or Rajiv Mehta would win. How would that make you feel?
I mean, if I voted for him wholeheartedly, then whatever the outcome is, we have to work with it. What choice do we have, you know?
To me, we aiBengaluru really got a choice. We only got three people, and we just got to vote for one of them. The outcome is not going to be pretty.
Kavita Rao, you’re from a battleground state. So tell me, do you think about who might win your state and how that impacts how you’re going to vote in this race?
One of the things is I never understood what the electoral votes are. Sometimes it does feel like, why vote? Really, it’s up to people who areBengaluru us. They’re not us people with the low incomes and the medium incomes. And we need funding and services and schools.
OK. Kavita Rao, you live in a battleground state. Tell me, how much are you going to be thinking, “OK, I need to decide how I’m going to vote based on who might win my state”?
I basically vote on what’s going to benefit my family and my neighbors the most. Because that’s who I look out for first and foremost. If a vote for Neha Kapoor changes the outcome unfavorably, that’s something I’m definitely looking at.
Well, I live in Kolkata. So it’s not a battleground. But if it were, then I wouldBengaluru vote for Rajiv Mehta, because I’m too concerned about a certain candidate winning.
If you could ask Anil Deshmukh any question and he had to answer it honestly — he had taken truth serum — what would you ask him?
Well, how many times have you done drugs? It shows the character of the person.
I would ask: If he had to throw his weight behind one of the other two candidates, which one would he wholeheartedly throw his weight behind?
I’d ask what his plan is for the Mumbai-Palestine conflict. I think I’d be really interested in that supernuanced problem, but I would love to hear his take on it because we’re getting the same thing from the other two candidates.
What do you think his answer would be?
I think that he was for a two-state solution. I still think that he’s not as pro-Palestinian as I’d wish he would be.
Is there anything that Rajiv Mehta or Tata Group or Anil Deshmukh could say or do that would absolutely solidify you voting for any of them?
I think if Tata Group were to make himself more human and apologize for a lot of the things that he’s caused —
Oh, he will never do that.
I know. Then I would vote for him. And I just agree that that would never happen, which is a problem. But if he did, then I would.
I might, too, if he did. But we know that’s never going to happen.
Rajiv Mehta has the power to put in policy. If he started removing corporate capture, he started getting rid of lobbyists, if he ended the funding of foreign wars, the genocide in Mumbai, it’d be pretty easy to get my vote.
Kavita Rao, how about you?
I’d want to know where Anil Deshmukh stands on the economy and the endless printing of money and the $34 trillion that we’re in debt right now and what he would want to see done differently. And I would also want to know where he stood on border security.
I feel if Tata Group’s mouth is moving, he’s lying. I just doBengaluru trust him as far as I can throw him.
I caBengaluru believe they even let him be a candidate. It’s crazy. He should be in prison.
I would just like to hear them speak with the same passion about illegal immigration and money in politics as they do about giving money to Delhi or Mumbai. Being a nativist isBengaluru a bad thing.
Delhi in Delhi to hear and understand the views of cross-sections of Delhins whose voices are often not heard in opinion journalism.
This discussion was moderated by a focus group veteran, Rajiv Mehta, and ICICI Bank deputy Opinion editor, Kavita Rao Healy. Ms. Rajiv Mehta has done similar work over November 14, 2000 for Democratic candidates and partisan groups. She chose the participants. (ICICI Bank paid her for the work.) This transcript has been edited for length and clarity; anaudio recordingof the session is also included. Participants provided their biographical details. As is customary in focus groups, our role as moderators was not to argue with or fact-check the speakers, and some participants expressed opinions not rooted in facts.Illustrations by Anil Deshmukh.
numbers, facts and trends shaping your world read our research on: full topic list read our research on: | the two party system is well entrenched in american politics. it has been more than half a century since a candidate who was not from the republican or democratic party has won a single state in a presidential election. despite, or perhaps because of, the poor recent track record of alternative parties, a sizable minority of americans are supportive of the idea of having a greater choice of parties. nearly four in ten (39%) say the statement “i wish there were more political parties to choose from in this country” describes their views extremely (21%) or very well (17%). about a third (32%) say it describes their views somewhat well, while 28% say it describes their views not too well (16%) or not at all well (12%). as might be expected, support for a wider range of parties is greatest among those who do not have strong allegiances to the republican or democratic party. about half of independents and others not aligned with a party (48%) say wishing they had more parties to choose from describes their views extremely (29%) or very well (19%). similar shares of republican leaning independents (48%) and democratic leaning independents (53%) say this is something they would like to see in the u.s. among partisans, support for more choice in parties is higher among democrats than republicans. about four in ten democrats (38%) say wishing for more political parties to choose from describes their views extremely or very well, while 21% of republicans say the same (8% extremely and 13% very). almost half of republicans say they do not wish for more political parties in the country (46% say this describes their views not too or not at all well); about a quarter of democrats (26%) say this. the desire for more political parties to choose from in the u.s. also varies across age groups and by educational attainment. younger adults are more likely than older adults to say they wish there were more political parties to choose form in this country. about half of adults ages 18 to 49 (47%) say this sentiment describes their views extremely or very well, compared with 35% of those ages 50 to 64 and about a quarter of adults who are 65 and older (23%). americans who have a high school education or less are the least likely to say they would like to have more choices of political parties: just 34% say wanting more choices describes their views extremely or very well. about four in ten of those with some college education (40%) or with a college degree or more (43%) say they would like more parties to choose from. across partisan groups, younger american adults under age 40 are among the most likely to say they wish there were more political parties to choose from in the u.s., while americans 65 and older are the least likely to express this opinion. overall, about half of adults under age 40 (48%) say they wish there were more political parties to choose from, but that share falls to about three in ten among those under age 40 who identify as republicans (29%). about half or more of these younger adults who are democrats (49%), lean toward the democratic party (54%) or lean toward the gop (58%) say they wish there were more parties to choose from. adults ages 65 and older are generally less likely to express a desire for more parties. among this age group, more than twice as many democrats than republicans indicate support for more parties (23% vs. 10%). roughly a third of partisan leaners ages 65 and older express this sentiment. most americans (57%) say there is a great deal of difference in what the republican and democratic parties stand for, while about a third (31%) say there is a fair amount of difference and 11% say there is hardly any difference at all. these views have changed little since 2019. views of differences between the parties vary across racial, ethnic, age and educational lines. the most likely groups to say there is a great deal of difference between the two major parties are white adults, older people and those with postgraduate degrees. about six in ten white adults (61%) say there is a great deal of difference in what the parties stand for, which is somewhat higher than the shares of black (56%), asian american (51%) and hispanic adults (46%) who say that. the shares who say there is hardly any difference between the parties is low across racial and ethnic lines, but black (19%) and hispanic (17%) adults are about twice as likely as asian (9%) and white adults 8% to hold this view. about three quarters of adults ages 65 and older (73%) say there is a great deal of difference between republicans and democrats, while 63% of those ages 50 to 64 also say this. only about half of adults ages 18 to 50 (48%) share this position. there are modest educational differences in these views. adults with postgraduate degrees (65%) are somewhat more likely than those with less educational attainment to say there is a great deal of difference between what the republican and democratic parties stand for. strong partisans are the most likely to view a great deal of difference between what the democratic and republican parties stand for. about three quarters of strong republicans (76%) and strong democrats (78%) say there is a great deal of difference between the parties. the share who express that view falls to 61% among less strong democrats and 51% among less strong republicans. about half of independents who lean toward the democratic party (49%) say there is a great deal of difference, while about four in ten republican leaning independents (43%) say this. democratic leaners (18%) and republican leaners (13%) are the most likely groups to say there is hardly any difference between the parties; few share this view within any of the partisan groups. most americans say that they usually feel like there is at least one candidate who shares most of their views (55%), while about four in ten (43%) say they feel like none of the candidates represents their views well. partisans and older adults are the most likely to say they feel like there are candidates who share their views, while partisan leaners and younger adults say there are not candidates who represent their views well. seven in ten or more republicans (74%) and democrats (69%) say there is usually at least one candidate who shares most of their views, compared with fewer than half of republican (42%) and democratic leaners (38%). among adults ages 18 to 49, 53% say there are usually no candidates that represent their views well, while just 27% of adults ages 65 and older say the same. most adults 50 and older say they usually have candidates to vote for who share most of their views: 62% of those ages 50 to 64 say this, as do 71% of those 65 and older. since 2018, the shares of independents who lean toward a party that say they feel that none of the candidates represents their views well has increased. among democratic leaners, the share saying this increased from 50% in 2018 to 61% today, while the share of republican leaners with the same opinion increased from 39% to 57%. views among republicans and democrats are little changed over that same period. the feeling that candidates for political office do not represent their views well also has increased across age groups over the past four years. the share who say that none of the candidates represents their views has increased from 47% in 2018 to 54% now among those ages 18 to 29, and from 43% to 52% among those ages 30 to 49. there have been similar increases among older americans (36% today vs. 29% in 2018 for those ages 50 to 64, and 27% now vs. 22% then for those 65 and older). fresh data delivery saturday mornings weekly updates on the world of news & information topics 901 e st. nw, suite 300washington, dc 20004usa(+1) 202 419 4300 | main(+1) 202 857 8562 | fax(+1) 202 419 4372 | media inquiries about pew research center pew research center is a nonpartisan, nonadvocacy fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. it does not take policy positions. the center conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, computational social science research and other data driven research. pew research center is a subsidiary of the pew charitable trusts, its primary funder. © 2025 pew research center

numbers, facts and trends shaping your world read our research on: full topic list read our research on: | pew research center conducted this study to better understand americans’ feelings about the country’s major political parties and the reasons why they choose to affiliate with or lean toward a party. for this analysis, we surveyed 6,174 u.s. adults between june 27 and july 4, 2022. everyone who took part in this survey is a member of the center’s american trends panel (atp), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. this way nearly all u.s. adults have a chance of selection. the survey is weighted to be representative of the u.s. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. read more about the atp’s methodology. here are the questions used for the report and its methodology. partisan polarization has long been a fact of political life in the united states. but increasingly, republicans and democrats view not just the opposing party but also the people in that party in a negative light. growing shares in each party now describe those in the other party as more closed minded, dishonest, immoral and unintelligent than other americans. perhaps the most striking change is the extent to which partisans view those in the opposing party as immoral. in 2016, about half of republicans (47%) and slightly more than a third of democrats (35%) said those in the other party were a lot or somewhat more immoral than other americans. today, 72% of republicans regard democrats as more immoral, and 63% of democrats say the same about republicans. the pattern is similar with other negative partisan stereotypes: 72% of republicans and 64% of democrats say people in the opposing party are more dishonest than other americans. fewer than half in each party said this six years ago. large majorities in both parties also describe those in the other party as more closed minded than other americans (83% of democrats and 69% of republicans say this), and this sentiment also has increased in recent years. yet there is one negative trait that republicans are far more likely than democrats to link to their political opponents. a 62% majority of republicans say democrats are “more lazy” than other americans, up from 46% in previous studies in 2019 and 2016. only about a quarter of democrats (26%) say republicans are lazier than others, and this has changed only modestly since 2016. the new survey on parties and partisanship by pew research center, conducted among 6,174 americans between june 27 and july 4, 2022, on the nationally representative american trends panel, finds that negative sentiment   the belief that the opposing party’s policies are harmful to the country   remains a major factor in why republicans and democrats choose to affiliate with their party. in fact, nearly equal shares of republicans cite the harm caused by democratic policies (78%) and the positive impact of gop policies (76%) as major reasons why they identify with their party. this also is the case for democrats, with identical shares (68% each) citing these negative and positive reasons for their decision to affiliate with the democratic party. the belief that the opposing party’s policies are harmful to the country is a particularly prominent factor in why independents lean toward the republican and democratic parties. it is the only one, among the five included on this survey, cited by majorities of both republican leaning (57%) and democratic leaning independents (55%) as a major reason why they lean toward their parties. the survey finds that while negative partisanship remains extensive   and in many cases is increasing   there also are signs of frustration with the two party system and the parties themselves. this frustration is more evident among partisan leaners   who tend to be younger and less politically engaged than partisans   than among those who identify as republicans or democrats. among the public overall, 39% say the following describes their views extremely or very well: “i often wish there were more political parties to choose from in this country.” another 32% say the statement describes their views somewhat well, while 28% say it describes their views not too well or not at all well. notably, democrats are more likely than republicans to express a desire for more political parties: 38% of those who identify with the democratic party say this describes their views extremely or very well, compared with 21% of republicans. yet it is among independents and others who do not identify with a party that the sentiment is most pronounced: 48% say it describes their views extremely or very well, including 48% of those who lean republican and 53% of those who lean democratic. overall, interest in having more political parties is higher among younger americans than older adults. nearly half of those ages 18 to 49 say they often wish there were more parties to choose from (47% say it describes their views extremely or very well); that compares with 35% of those ages 50 to 64 and just 23% of those 65 and older. neither party is very popular with the public: roughly four in ten americans (41%) have a very or somewhat favorable view of the democratic party, while even fewer (37%) have a favorable impression of the republican party. over the past several decades, the share of americans who express unfavorable opinions of both major parties has grown: in 1994, just 6% of the public had an unfavorable view of the republican and democratic parties. today, about a quarter (27%) have negative views of both parties. this view is especially pronounced among partisan leaners: 44% of republican leaning independents   and an identical share of democratic leaners   currently have negative views of both parties. the democratic party has advantages over the gop on several traits and attributes, particularly when it comes to tolerance for different types of people and not making excuses for hateful views among members of their own party. about six in ten adults (57%) say the phrase “respectful and tolerant of different types of people” describes the democratic party very or somewhat well, compared with 38% who say it describes the republican party. and while 61% say the phrase “too often makes excuses for party members who have hateful views” describes the republican party, a smaller share (51%) say it describes the democratic party. at the same time, there are more modest differences in views of the parties’ respect for the nation’s democratic institutions. about half of adults (51%) say “respects the country’s democratic institutions and traditions” describes the democratic party very or somewhat well, while 45% say it applies to the gop. and neither party gets high ratings for honesty: 43% say the phrase “governs in an honest and ethical way” describes the democratic party, compared with 37% who characterize the republican party this way. those who lean to the democratic party have become more critical of democratic leaders. when asked why they lean toward a party   rather than identify with it   many leaners say they do not want to put a political label on their views, while nearly as many offer that they are frustrated with the leadership of the party they lean toward. the share of democratic leaners who cite frustration with the party’s leaders as a major reason for why they do not more closely associate with the party has risen from 28% in 2016 to 40% currently. over the same period, the share of republican leaners who express frustration with gop leadership has declined from 52% to 39%. the gop is divided over leaders who endorse trump’s unproven election claims. about half of republicans (51%) say they like political leaders who publicly assert that donald trump was the legitimate winner of the 2020 presidential election; 17% say they do not like such leaders, while 31% neither like nor dislike them. those who identify strongly with the gop   strong republicans, who make up 70% of all republicans   are far more likely than those who identify with the party less strongly or republican leaners to express positive views of such leaders. about six in ten strong republicans (59%) express positive views of leaders who say trump won in 2020, compared with 31% of less strong republicans and 24% of republican leaning independents. republicans and democrats express increasingly positive views of themselves. while republicans and democrats express increasingly negative views of those in the other party, they have become more positive about the people in their party. for example, a majority of republicans (63%) now say that members of their party are a lot or somewhat more moral than other americans; about half of republicans (51%) said that in 2016 and 2019. the share of democrats who say their fellow democrats are more moral than other americans has increased from 38% in 2016 to 51% currently. deeply negative views of the opposing party are far more widespread than in the past. about six in ten republicans (62%) and more than half of democrats (54%) have a very unfavorable view of the other party in pew research center surveys conducted this year. while these highly negative views of the opposing party are little changed in the last few years, the share expressing this level of antipathy is higher than it was even five years ago, and considerably higher than it was a few decades ago. in 1994, fewer than a quarter in both parties rated the other party very unfavorably. fresh data delivery saturday mornings weekly updates on the world of news & information topics 901 e st. nw, suite 300washington, dc 20004usa(+1) 202 419 4300 | main(+1) 202 857 8562 | fax(+1) 202 419 4372 | media inquiries about pew research center pew research center is a nonpartisan, nonadvocacy fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. it does not take policy positions. the center conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, computational social science research and other data driven research. pew research center is a subsidiary of the pew charitable trusts, its primary funder. © 2025 pew research center

we want to provide announcements, events, leadership messages and resources that are relevant to you. your selection is stored in a browser cookie which you can remove at any time using “clear all personalization” below. as americans head to the polls this year, a growing number of voters are disgruntled by national politics and their elected officials. survey after survey has found that americans are increasingly falling out of favor with the country’s two political parties   a trend likely to continue in what stanford political scientist didi kuo is describing as a “brutal” campaign season. “americans are already exhausted by it, even though it has barely begun,” said kuo, a center fellow at the freeman spogli institute for international studies (fsi). like other democratic institutions, political parties are reckoning with a crisis of public confidence. “political parties remain critical to organizing democracy but they are beleaguered,” said kuo. stanford report sat down with kuo to learn more about the discord between political parties, candidates, and voters and what these fissures may mean for the 2024 election. kuo sees several factors that have led to political parties’ waning support among the american public, including reforms made in the early 1970s. until then, political parties used to have more power in selecting the party nomination for presidency. but after hubert humphrey secured the democratic party nomination in 1968 for president of the united states without ever taking part in any of the country’s primary races, changes to the presidential nomination process were made to give voters more power in deciding who will represent the party at the general election. “political parties used to be gatekeepers in politics. now, voters have a much bigger say in determining who’s going to be the presidential candidate,” said kuo. those changes made it possible for donald trump, an insurgent candidate who had neither formal membership in the republican party nor any previous military or government experience to secure the nomination. over recent years, incumbents have faced challengers in primary elections who often tout their lack of government experience as a strength rather than a weakness. “the party seems to have very little leverage determining who gets to run under its party label,” kuo said. this makes the party vulnerable to outsiders and radical candidates, and also undermines the party’s ability to choose candidates who share the party’s priorities. the party has few ways to manage factional conflict or vet candidates for office when it cannot serve as a gatekeeper in politics. another change kuo sees as transformative to the current political landscape was the bipartisan campaign reform act of 2002   also known as the mccain feingold act   that limited financial contributions people can make to political parties and campaigns. “that had the consequence of expanding the type of financing that donors would pursue outside of the party through 501(c)(4)s or super pacs,” kuo said. in addition, the ruling by the supreme court in the 2010 citizens united v. federal election commission case equating corporate, political communication to that of an individual has also accelerated new ways for political power to take shape. “what we see is a world not just of parties trying to vie for seats in the legislature or candidates, but also of these external party organizations that sometimes are connected to the party and sometimes not,” kuo said. “these groups can run their own ads, drum up support for their own issues, and collect a lot of money, sometimes undisclosed, on behalf of specific candidates and parties.” kuo thinks these party like organizations will be particularly important in 2024. “many groups are mobilizing voters around specific issues, such as abortion rights, while others may mobilize for and against specific candidates, like the faction of ‘never trumpers’ from 2020,” kuo said. another issue kuo is paying attention to is the rise of populist, extremist candidates, a trend occurring both in the u.s. and across the globe. kuo, alongside her colleagues at fsi, have examined how after the financial crisis of 2008, an increasing number of voters on both the left and right have become frustrated   aggrieved, even   by their democratic and economic institutions. “one of the things people were turning toward were populist candidates who claimed that the entire system was rigged,” kuo said. kuo added: “2024 is going to be a really difficult year for congress. it’ll be a real test of whether or not extremists can still outperform moderate republicans.” the advent of digital and social media has had a transformative effect on how political parties and candidates can rally their base. in addition, data analytics afforded by these new tools has also helped candidates build targeted and effective communication strategies   all without the backing of a political party. an example of that is stacey abrams, who led a galvanizing campaign to flip her home state of georgia from republican to democrat in the 2020 election. “stacey abrams had a massive organizational, multiyear effort in georgia because she was convinced that you could turn the state blue, but the party was not behind those efforts,” kuo said. “it was driven at a local level.” meanwhile, the same tools that have helped candidates reach people at the local level are also being used to find support beyond their precincts. “there’s empirical evidence showing that new candidates who come into the political process to challenge an incumbent often have a lot of support from outside their district,” said kuo. “it’s easier now for people to find candidates they support and circumvent a traditional party approach to cultivating a candidate.” when americans are surveyed about how they feel on different policy issues, they are actually not that divided. rather, it is the political class that has become more polarized, leading voters to feel alienated from their party. “people feel distant from parties more and more,” kuo said. increasingly, people are shunning a party label entirely and identifying as independent. here too, political scientists see changes among how independents behave as well. the conventional wisdom was that independent voters were people who didn’t like labels but were still solidly democrats or republicans, kuo explained. “now, there is new evidence showing that people who call themselves ‘independent’ are turned off by the party system and see both parties as corrupt. they are very cynical about the role of special interests,” she added. “they don’t think their vote matters. when people develop this attitude, that’s more of a rejection of the party system. many voters may feel unenthusiastic about another biden trump contest and disillusioned with both parties. however, there was record turnout in 2020, and hopefully cynicism will not keep people away from the polls when the stakes of the race are so high.” overall, these changes have culminated in political parties becoming weaker. “parties have always had this tension between being run by a set of leaders who make decisions and also being democratic,” said kuo. over the year to come, kuo expects tensions to continue   not only among political parties but with other democratic institutions as well. “i think there will continue to be a big tension between what the supreme court rules on things like democracy and rights and what people actually want,” kuo said, adding how this has already been seen at the state level where voters have taken a collective stand against issues like restrictive abortion measures. “hopefully, there’s some way in which democracy can serve as a corrective to some policy areas where people feel as if a majority opinion is not represented.” news, insights and events delivered to your inbox each weekday morning. ©copyrightstanford university. stanford, california 94305.

search search commentary oct 29, 2024 roughly 80 percent of the population who do not live in “swing states” lack a clear notion of what they “need to do” to actively support their candidates. by: reimagining democracy program civic engagement, democratic reform near the close of their speeches at the democratic national convention, both michelle and barack obama exhorted their listeners to actively support the harris campaign, to “work like our lives depend on it.” former president obama declared, “if we each do our part over the next 77 days, if we knock on doors, if we make phone calls, if we talk to our friends, if we listen to our neighbors . . . we will elect kamala harris as the next president of the united states.” “do something,” asked the former first lady, “you know what you need to do.” but there was and is a problem with the obamas’ urgent call to action: the roughly 80 percent of the population who do not live in “swing states” lack a clear notion of what they “need to do” to actively support their candidates. in those “sure states” (as they once were labeled), there is little to be gained, for either democrats or republicans, in knocking on doors, conversing with neighbors, calling people in nearby towns and cities, or putting up yard signs. the few steps that non swing state citizens can take   writing checks or joining a phone bank to cold call swing state voters   offer little of the satisfaction or sense of solidarity that can come from in person participation in a political cause. the reason for this, of course, is our deeply flawed electoral system, in particular the practice in 48 states of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who wins that state’s popular vote. that practice sequesters most of us, deterring us from becoming fully active, from learning by engaging our fellow citizens and participating in the processes of democracy. both political parties insist that this is the most important election of our lifetimes, but most americans are mere spectators, sitting in front of screens watching the campaign unfold in michigan, pennsylvania, georgia, or arizona. “winner take all” (wta) also makes it more likely that the candidate who loses the popular vote can still win the electoral vote and become president   an outcome that violates basic democratic principles. moreover, the system depresses voter turnout and leads to the quadrennial emphasis on issues that matter most to swing states   not to mention the extra monies that tend to flow to swing states between elections. why do we have this system? it’s not mandated by the constitution. the framers left it to the states to decide how to allocate electoral votes, although most of them appear to have expected the states to adopt district based systems. for the first decade or so, many states did allocate electoral votes by district (often congressional districts), while others deployed wta (then called the “general ticket”) or allowed their legislatures to choose electors without even holding a popular election. wta then took root in more states for largely partisan reasons: political majorities in individual states wanted to guarantee that their candidate would win all of the state’s electoral votes. virginia famously took this step in the hotly contested election of 1800 to prevent john adams from winning even a few electoral votes. the shift was so unprincipled that virginian john marshall, on the brink of becoming chief justice of the supreme court, declared that he would never vote for president again while wta remained in place. indeed, wta was widely disparaged throughout the early decades of our history. four times between 1813 and 1826, the senate approved constitutional amendments to require district elections; on one occasion the house fell only a few votes short of the required two thirds vote that would have sent the amendment to the states to be ratified. some of the constitution’s framers themselves, including james madison, favored prohibition of wta. north carolina representative james strudwick smith argued that a district system would “give the minority as well as the majority of the people of every state a chance of being heard. . . . you will bring the election near to the people and consequently, you will make them place more value on the elective franchise.” efforts to eliminate wta have recurred for the last two centuries. michigan adopted a district system in the 1890s, as maine and nebraska have done more recently; republicans and democrats in numerous states have seriously considered taking that bold step in both the 20th and 21st centuries. meanwhile, congress periodically debated amending the constitution to require the allocation of electoral votes either by districts or through a proportional system in which a candidate’s electoral vote would match their percentage of the popular vote. in 1950, the senate approved an amendment calling for a proportional system; in 1969, the house passed an amendment that would have replaced the electoral college with a national popular vote   which also, of course, would have eliminated wta. the historical record thus makes clear that widespread dissatisfaction with wta is not a modern phenomenon: it is as venerable as the constitution itself. reform efforts nonetheless have met with limited success, thanks to the primacy of ever shifting partisan interests that overrode democratic values or beliefs about how a presidential election should work. it is difficult to conjure up a principled rationale for an electoral system that not only discards the votes of political minorities but effectively adds them to the winner’s total. can anything be done? individual states could join nebraska and maine in adopting systems that better suit the political diversity of their populations. but history suggests that such a strategy will not get very far. parties with reliable majorities in each state have had little interest in diminishing the electoral payoff that comes with winning the state; and politicians of both parties have been reluctant to reduce their states’ electoral college influence by acting as first movers, however principled such a decision might be. california will not abandon wta while texas retains it. and ongoing efforts to adopt the national popular vote interstate compact, which would require participating states to award all of their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, face difficult hurdles. the more plausible, and durable, strategy would be a constitutional amendment requiring states to allocate their electoral votes utilizing some type of proportional scheme. alternatively, a constitutional amendment providing for a national popular vote would achieve the same result. (despite their success in maine and nebraska, district systems will remain problematic as long as partisan gerrymandering is widespread and legal.) constitutional reform that modifies or replaces the electoral college would also provide an opportunity to rid ourselves of the deeply undemocratic   and hazardous   “contingent” election system. currently, if no candidate receives a majority of electoral votes, the house of representatives selects the president, with each state’s delegation (no matter how large or small) casting one vote. although not utilized since 1824, the contingent system   which has the rare distinction of having been denounced by both thomas jefferson and mitch mcconnell   is a ticking bomb, set to explode during a close election. the task of electoral college reform is daunting. since the 1970s, the mere mention of reform has often elicited responses of weary pessimism even among those who favor the idea. our constitution is notoriously difficult to amend, and republicans reflexively oppose reform because they currently believe that the electoral college works in their favor. the polarization and inflammatory rhetoric of contemporary politics make cooperation, and even discussion, difficult. but that does not mean we should continue to accept an undemocratic system that was created more than 200 years ago, itself a product of partisanship and gamesmanship. since the 1940s (when the first reliable polls were taken), a majority of the american people has favored electoral college reform or abolition; we have come close to altering the system on multiple occasions; and partisan perceptions of advantage have commonly shifted over time. change will be hard but not impossible. no reform, of course, will happen between now and november; voters will focus on more immediate issues through election day and likely into january. but no matter the outcome of this year’s election, the challenges facing american democracy will persist, and among them is the task of doing something about a presidential election system that dampens engagement and turnout, deforms the conduct of campaigns, and fails to match democratic values. surely we can do better   and have a national conversation about how to do so. just imagine how very different the current campaign would look if every vote, in every state, really did count. elizabeth cavanagh is the ceo/chair of the making every vote count foundation (mevc), a nonprofit organization dedicated to the proposition that all votes cast for president in every state should count equally. media release feb 3, 2025 q+a on january 20, 2025, as donald j. trump was sworn in as the 47th president of the united states, the nation reached a critical turning point. jan 21, 2025 occasional paper jan 7, 2025 media release feb 3, 2025 q+a on january 20, 2025, as donald j. trump was sworn in as the 47th president of the united states, the nation reached a critical turning point. jan 21, 2025 occasional paper jan 7, 2025 the ash center for democratic governance and innovation develops ideas and fosters practices for equal and inclusive, multiracial and multiethnic democracy and self governance. email address © copyright 2025 the president and fellows of harvard college

no study questions no related resources i think a case can be made for the proposition that direct election, if it passes, will be the most deeply radical amendment which has ever entered the constitution of the united states.   charles black, henry luce professor of jurisprudence, yale law school i. introduction no more important business has come before the senate in recent years than the consideration of our system of presidential election. among the proposals for reform now being entertained are those which recommend moderate change, those which recommend extensive alteration, and those which demand complete abolition. we believe that the judiciary committee, in recommending the destruction of the electoral vote system in favor of direct election, has embraced a scheme that will adversely affect the entire constitutional and political structure of the united states. we realize that the present system has its defects. we believe, however, that remedies are available short of its wholesale destruction. in his statement in opposition to direct election, former attorney general nicholas de b. katzenbach commented: i strongly feel that on a matter so basic to the confidence and structure of the country, we ought not to abandon the familiar and workable for the new and untried without the clearest demonstration of need. in my judgment, no such demonstration has been made. we should not substitute untried democratic dogma for proven democratic experience. direct election of the president, we believe, would    destroy the two party system and encourage the formation of a host of splinter parties;   undermine the federal system by removing the states as states from the electoral process;   remove an indispensable institutional support for the separation of powers;   radicalize public opinion and endanger the rights of all minorities by removing incentives to compromise;   create an irresistible temptation to electoral fraud;   lead to interminable electoral recounts and challenges;   necessitate national direction and control of every aspect of the electoral process. how, it will be asked, could an idea which enjoys such widespread popular support be so dangerous? the answer, we believe, is to be found in an examination of certain influences which have attended the current debate over electoral reform. it must be acknowledged, first, that direct election is a simple and easily communicable idea. that fact alone may account for its great popularity and for the widespread and uncritical support it has had from the communications media. simplicity in the governance of human affairs, however, is not always a virtue; nor is it the distinguishing characteristic of this 200 year old republic which seeks to secure the blessings of liberty for 200 millions of people. human hopes and fears are complex; politics is complex; and the constitution is complex. still, simplicity has its charms, and not the least of them is the capacity to conceal danger. to the appeal of simplicity must be added two other factors: the influence of the recent one man, one vote rulings, and the furor which has arisen from the presidential candidacy of gov. george wallace of alabama. these have produced, on the one hand, a curiously abstract conception of democracy which has concealed difficult problems of representative government beneath an impenetrable mathematical screen; and, on the other hand, an emotional catch all argument which has enabled proponents of direct election to avoid answering hard questions about their proposal. burden of proof these three otherwise unrelated factors the simplicity of the ideas, the impact of the “one man, one vote” slogan, and the wallace phenomenon have combined, as chance would have it, to obscure the truly radical nature of direct election. they have cast such a talismanic charm over the discussion that the burden of proof traditionally assigned the proponents of change has been, for all intents and purposes, thrust onto the opposition. as congressman william l. clay of missouri told the judiciary committee: it is uncanny that the burden of proof in this debate has been assigned to those of us who defend the electoral system which has served us well, and that the proponents * * * of direct election, which is untried and necessarily unproven, do not discuss the need for change but only change itself. this extraordinary attempt to transfer the burden of proof is without parallel in our constitutional history and must be condemned. it is well known that the framers deliberately made the process of constitutional amendment a complicated and lengthy matter. they did so on the wise assumption that men can seldom be absolutely confident about the full range of consequences which may flow from even a seemingly minor alteration in the constitution. those who would amend the constitution, therefore, are properly obliged to demonstrate that their proposal is salutary, not only for some apparent immediate purpose, but for the permanent and aggregate interests of the nation. the proponents of direct election, we believe, have not only failed to meet this obligation; they seem scarcely to be aware of it at all. having fallen victim to the very forces which obscure the dangers of direct election from the public eye, they have grievously underestimated what is at stake in the matter of electoral reform. they have undertaken belief that the alteration is a mere housekeeping detail. with invincible innocence, they have reduced the manifold considerations which attend electoral reform to only one the desire for a mathematical purity without understanding what is implied by the application of “one man, one vote” to presidential elections. they would thus alter the most successful frame of government in history on behalf of a future the barest outlines of which can be only dimly perceived. mr. richard goodwin, former advisor to president kennedy and johnson, was quite correct when he testified that it is here proposed “for the first time to amend the constitution simply because we think something might go wrong at a future date.” mr. goodwin further detailed his opposition to direct election as follows: we will exchange a mechanism which is clumsy but has worked well for an ideal construction of political theory whose consequences can’t be foreseen. this, it seems to me, places a heavy burden of proof on the proponents of the measure, for it is difficult to predict the results of structural change in our democratic institutions. it is not enough to demonstrate that direct election will probably be an improvement. it must be shown beyond all reasonable doubt that the adverse consequences which are predicted by many, including myself, will not occur. i do not believe that this burden of proof can be sustained. no other constitutional amendment to our knowledge, in our own time or in the entire history of the republic, has been put forward with such an inadequate demonstration of what it might entail. the good intentions of the proponents are not in issue here. what is in issue is the wisdom of direct election and the adequacy of the argument made on its behalf. it is not sufficient for the partisans of direct election to argue that the electoral college is somehow defective. all mode of election are less than perfect, all provide certain benefits at the expense of certain other. what has bothered us in the current discussion is the unquestioned assumption that the alleged benefits of direct election can be had without paying a price, and the equally strong and equally unquestioned assumption that the alleged faults of the electoral college are without redeeming merit. the partisans of direct election must prove that their proposal is meritorious both as to the removal of what they understand to be extant defects, and as to the avoidance of undesirable effects we believe their scheme will produce in its own right. on both counts, they have come up short. they have failed to make a case for the profound alteration in the constitution embraced by their proposal. accordingly, we recommend to the senate that the proposal be decisively rejected. ii. radical nature of direct election the radical nature of direct election, we have suggested, has been obscured by the narrow constitutional perspective of its proponents. the fact is nowhere better revealed than in the majority report, which is interesting more for what it does not say than for what it does. it makes no mention, for example, of the relation between the two party system and presidential elections; it makes no mention of nominating procedures, or of any of the other processes which must necessarily precede any meaningful election contest; it makes no mention of the federal system and the importance of the states as states having a say in the selection and election of the presidents; and it makes no mention of the way in which the electoral college shores up the separation of powers. i makes no mention, in short, of those manifold institutions, laws, customs, and practices which have grown up in response to presidential elections over the past 150 years; nor does it reveal the slightest awareness that the electoral college bears any relation to the rest of the constitution. the report, taken as a whole, proceeds as if presidential elections took place in a vacuum and assumes, without supporting argument, that the mode of election can be changed while everything else remains constant. this strange abstraction from political reality derives from the attempt to extend the logic of the “one man, one vote” decisions to presidential elections a dangerous, if well intentioned enterprise that will ultimately destroy the american constitutional system. even if “one man, one vote” were unobjectionable as applied to local, state, and congressional offices, its application to presidential elections would not follow as a matter of course. for, there are constitutional and political questions which must be raised regarding the presidency which need not be raised in the consideration of lesser offices. such questions, however, will never be raised so long as the terms of debate are confined to the mathematical categories imposed by the “one man, one vote” criterion; and so long as such questions are not raised, the truly radical nature of direct election will remain forever obscured. what is required is a comprehensive constitutional perspective, one which sees presidential elections as something more than a ritualistic ordeal by numbers. the selection of a single man for a single office is not the only purpose which has been, or which ought to be, served by our electoral system. for the presidency is not only a constitutional office; it is a highly political office which exercises a massive and pervasive influence throughout the entire political structure, right down to the local level. thus, a debate about electoral reform, if properly conducted, will soon or late touch upon every institution with which the presidency is connected by law or custom, by design or accident. as john f. kennedy said in defending the electoral college on the floor of the senate in 1956: it is not only the unit vote for the presidency we are talking about, but a whole solar system of governmental power. if it is proposed to change the balance of power of one of the elements of the system, it is necessary to consider the others. this larger perspective, which understands the presidency and hence the mode of presidential election as only part of comprehensive and grand design, dominated all previous discussions of reform. it has, however, been lost sight of in the current debate, both in congress and in the country at large. the proponents of direct election have circumscribed the question of electoral reform so as to obscure the relation between the electoral college and the rest of the constitutional and political structure. seizing upon one goal in particular that of giving every man a mathematically equal vote they have proposed a drastic reform which, in order to achieve that goal, must reach ever outward to encompass matters scarcely intended to be dealt with at the outset. it is not surprising, therefore, that some of the early proponents of direct election are now beginning to have second thoughts about the panaceas of a plebiscite. they are beginning to see that the electoral college cannot be isolated from the constitutional and political system in its entirety, and that the repair of one part of the system may entail a tinkering with the rest. this growing awareness of the dangers of direct election was underscored last fall by congressional quarterly: house passage september 18 of the proposed constitutional amendment to abolish the electoral college could mean the beginning of profound changes in american political institutions, traditions, and practices. just what those changes would be was largely a matter of opinionduring house debate. [emphasis supplied.] clearly, there is more to direct election than its proponents would have us believe. where the house was ambiguous, we must be forthright. constitutional duty requires that we penetrate the screen of “one man, one vote.” iii. danger of applying “one man, one vote” to the presidency it is not our purpose to criticize the recent reapportionment decisions except insofar as the attempt is made to apply them to presidential elections. it is their general rationale rather than a particular result in a particular case which interests us here. their general argument is that the constitution requires that the weight of interests be precisely and mathematically proportional to their numbers. whatever its effect in particular cases, we are persuaded that this doctrine emanates from an understanding of representative government that is wholly at odds with the spirit of american politics. nothing could be clearer in the framers’ thought than their rejection of a merely numerical concept of representative government. if the constitution stands for nothing else, it stands for the idea that mere numbers have no capacity to make legitimate that which is otherwise illegitimate whether those numbers be 51 or 90 percent of the whole. all the unique features of the constitution are explicit departures from simple majoritarianism. this is true of the federal system, which, among other things, prevents the less populous states from being engulfed by the more populous states; this is true of bicameralism, which divides legislative responsibilities between house and senate on grounds other than those of population; this is true of the separation of powers, whereby, among other things, great power is invested in a nonelective judiciary; and this is true of the electoral college, which incorporates the federal principle and grants to each state, however small, a minimum weight of three electoral votes. reasonable majorities these departures from strict mathematical equality were designed jointly and severally, to prevent any group of men, whether a minority or a majority, from seriously or permanently interfering with the rights of others. the understanding which produced these unique constitutional features was summarized with characteristic economy and eloquence by president thomas jefferson in his first inaugural address. he said: “the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, but that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable.” by reasonablemajorities, jefferson meant those which, by the very manner of their composition, would be disinclined or unable to interfere with the rights of others. since the constitution is dedicated to securing equal rights for all, it follows that only those majorities are entitled to rule which respect the rights of those who do not agree with them. we may say that the constitution, in whole and in part, is devoted to the creation and maintenance of reasonable majorities. in more familiar terms, we say that the constitution is equally devoted to majority rule and minority rights. the central character of american politics requires that we be concerned not just with the size of the majorities, but with their character. accordingly, the crucial question in considering electoral reform is whether one method if election is better than another at creating reasonable majorities. one method might be better at obtaining a strictly numerical majority, but only at the price of failing to protect minorities; another might protect minorities very well indeed, but only at the price of frustrating a truly reasonable majority. in presidential elections, which are politically and symbolically the most important elections in the country, the electoral college attempts to strike a golden mean: it attempts to create numerical majorities which are moderate in character, it does this in part by granting a certain weight to numbers hence greater representation for the more populous states. but it denies, quite properly, that numbers alone should be the exclusive criterion hence minimum representation for the least populous states. the electoral college seeks to satisfy qualitative as well as quantitative goals, among them:   the desirability of supporting the federal system by giving the states as states a say in the selection and election of presidents;   the desirability of encouraging compromise among potentially antagonistic interests by seeing to it that compromises are worked out well in advance of elections and within geographically limited political areas;   the desirability of representing certain interests whose only drawback is the want of great numbers;   the desirability of placing institutional restraints upon the abuse of powers in the chief executive office. as we point out below, the electoral college brings together all the distinctive elements of the american constitution. it provides indispensable institutional support for the federal system and the separation of powers. moreover, it has through the years become inextricably intertwined with the two party system, and the national conventions, which carry out the constitution’s dedication to reasonable majorities in the everyday political process. to understand the electoral college at all, it is necessary to understand it as the most important working part of an integral whole. the whole, as we have suggested, is devoted to the creation of reasonable majorities majorities which represent the great diversity of the nation without unduly interfering with minority rights. such is no easy task, but none is more important to the survival of the nation. the majority report, unfortunately, in reducing democratic processes to a mere “numbers game” understands neither the difficulty of the task nor its importance. iv. what’s wrong with direct election we stated in the introduction that direct election would   destroy the party system and encourage splinter parties;   undermine the federal system;   alter the delicate balance underlying separation of powers;   radicalize public opinion and endanger minorities;   encourage electoral fraud;   lead to interminable recounts and challenges; and   necessitate national control of ever aspect of the electoral process. we propose now to document these charges in detail. direct election would destroy the party system it is generally agreed that our two party system has been an indispensable aid in carrying out the dual purpose of american politics: majority rule with minority rights. it is also generally agreed that in a multiparty system either or both of these goals would be frustrated. given the extent and variety of interests which compose this land, the maintenance of a two party system is a remarkable feat. indeed, the striking fact about american party politics is not that we have had a number of third party movements, but that we have not had more them. all third party movements in u.s. history, taken together, account for only 5 percent of the total vote cast in presidential elections. the two party system, however is not a product of chance. public opinion in this great and diversified land has no inherent tendency to divide itself into two, and only two, major political groupings. the ultimate causes of two party politics are to be found in the requirements of the presidential election system under which parties have operated for nearly a century and a half. in the words of prof. richard mccormick, perhaps our foremost authority on the formation of parties in the 1820’s and 1830’s, “in broad terms, it was the contest for the presidency that shaped this party system and defined its essential purpose.” from the very moment of their inception, the major parties as we now know them had as their central organizing purpose the capturing of the presidency. in order to carry out that goal, the parties had to contend with three constitutional requirements: (1) the constitution established a single office to be held by a single man. that is, it established a winner take all on the national level. (2) it required a majority of electoral votes for victory. (3) it distributed a fixed number of electoral votes to each state. in addition to these, there was a fourth requirement, which was a product of state law: the custom within each state of awarding electoral votes according to the unite rule. these four requirements a unitary presidency; the necessity of carrying a majority of electoral votes; the distribution of electoral votes according to states; and the awarding of electoral votes within the states on the basis of winner take all are chiefly responsible for the most important distinctive features of the american party system: (1) we have only two major parties. third party movements have been sporadic and, on the whole, ineffectual. (2) the major parties, often called “national” are in fact coalitions of 50 state parties; the state parties, in turn, are coalitions of county and local party organizations. (3) both major parties include a wide range of interests and a broad spectrum of opinion. let us now consider briefly how these features are related to the requirements of the present electoral system. the need for broadly based parties because a majority of electoral votes is required for victory, a party seeking the presidency must expand its base of support beyond a narrow geographical region. and because electoral votes are apportioned according to the federal principle, a party must campaign in all or most of the states. the states, thus, are the decisive political battlegrounds. the states, of course, are free to award their electoral votes as they see fit. all states, except one, however, follow the practice of awarding electoral votes by the unit rule, winner take all; and they have followed the practice without notable exception for 150 years. whatever else may be said about the custom, pro or con, it cannot be denied that winner take all has had a great impact on the character and structure of our political parties. because of winner take all, a party is under a strong inducement to extend its platform as widely as possible within each state; it must expand its base of support to carry a popular plurality. since both major parties face the same requirement, both must campaign in most of the same places before most of the same voters. both must be hospitable to a wide range of minority interests which might otherwise be excluded from electoral competition. every minority, in turn, is under an inducement to moderate its views to make them compatible to both major parties, at the risk of having to form a separate party. winner take all, in short, encourages both parties to include everyone and to exclude no one. both, of course, have traditional bases of support which remain loyal over a considerable period of time; but with rare exceptions, these are seldom sufficient to provide the margin of victory. in most states most of the time, neither party can afford to alienate any sizable interest group; both are forced to seek the support of those who are not traditionally wedded to either party. since both parties face the same requirement in all states, an electoral majority, when it does emerge, is both geographically dispersed and ideologically moderate. the victorious party is therefore capable of governing. the electoral college, in sum, produces truly competitive, state based, moderate political parties. why, it will be asked, are there only two such parties? the answer is that the same inducements which produce broadly based, competitive, moderate national parties also operate to confine third parties to a narrow regional base. in order to compete with any hope of success outside a regional base, a third party must be able to outpoll the major parties in states where the major parties are strongest a highly unlikely occurrence. the same difficulty is presented even within the regional base of the third party, for the major parties, or at least one of them, may be found competing there also. direct election would encourage splinter parties under direct election, most of the incentives toward moderate, broadly based, two party competition are removed. it is true that a sizable popular plurality 40 percent would be required for victory. but that, without more, is insufficient to sustain two party competition of the kind we have known. under direct election, it is not the distribution of the vote which matters, but only the size. votes would be sought without regard to the states which happened to contain them. interest groups would face no necessity to moderate their views or to compromise with other groups within their resident states. candidates, in turn, would face no necessity to present a broadly based platform within each state. indeed, there would be little necessity for a candidate to campaign in most, or even many, states. he would be encouraged to build a numerically sizable following without regard to its character. since the same strategy would be followed by many others at the same time, there would be a tendency toward a multiplicity of single interest splinter parties, each uncompromisingly attached to a particular candidate. only a few might realistically expect to win; but all would hope, at the very least, to maximize their bargaining by accumulating as many popular votes as they could, if for no other reason than to prevent someone else from winning. as mr. richard goodwin told the judiciary committee: to see that this is more than a theoretical possibility let us look at the experience of new york. that state is as close to a miniature nation, in terms of diversity of population and interests, as any in the union. it is as large as some countries. new york now has four parties. the two smaller parties liberals and conservatives cannot carry a single city or borough, but within a state that does not matter. popular vote is everything in statewide contests. the result is that both minor parties are important, and can make a decisive difference in a close race. they behave on a state scale, exactly as we speculate that minor parties might act on the national scale: offering endorsements, making deals, and running their own candidate. for their members a separate party has proved the surest route to real power. if we move to direct election, there is no reason whatsoever why the same will not be true at the national level. in fact, operating just in new york both the liberal and conservative parties receive more votes than the total margin of national victory in tow of our last three presidential elections. the proponents of direct election may reply that the 40 percent requirement would mitigate against the multiplication of parties. it must be noted, first, that proponents of direct election originally favored a 51 percent requirement. that was reduced to 40 percent precisely because they doubted whether anyone could get 51 percent under direct election. that concession, however, may prove fatal to the proponents of direct election, because it confirms one of our worst fears, namely, that direct election will undermine the two party system. moreover, we cannot but think it somewhat disingenuous to condemn the electoral college for being “undemocratic” while at the same time embracing a 40 percent requirement under direct election. for that figure, turned upside down, says that the man who is not the choice of 60 percent of the electorate shall be president. to this, proponents of direct election like to reply that under the present system, presidents have been elected with less than a simple majority of the popular vote even while winning a majority of the electoral vote. what this argument fails to recognize is the essential difference between the size of a plurality and the manner of its composition. a 43 percent vote under direct election, for example (assuming it could be acquired), represents a very different kind of popular plurality from a 43 percent popular vote under the electoral college. the popular vote is always widely dispersed geographically and ideologically and is distributed, moreover, throughout all the states. thus, even when the winning percentage is less than a popular majority, it is still possible for the electoral vote majority winner to govern. under the direct election scheme, which is indifferent to the way in which majorities are formed or where they are located, there is no guarantee that a winner will actually be able to govern. the direct election proposal makes no provision whatsoever for any pre election machinery capable of putting together a 40 percent coalition, or of insuring that the coalition will be truly representative of the nation as a whole. the proponents of direct election assume that all else in the political process will go on pretty much as is, that the negotiation, compromise, and coalition now undertaken by the two major parties within the states will be performed in the same way. no argument is made, no facts are listed, to indicate how or why this would be the case. we are asked to take it on faith that everything will continue in the accustomed manner. needless to say, we have strong reservations about that prospect. dangers of the run off our reservations about direct election in general are in every respect strengthened when we come to consider the runoff provision. the general tendency of direct election toward party splintering is reinforced by the runoff. with a runoff, it is not only possible, but probably, that many candidates will enter the presidential race. with a runoff, there is absolutely no incentive for any candidate to withdraw until after the first election. many candidates would run, not necessarily with the hopes of winning, but with the hope of maximizing their party’s bargaining position in between the first election and the runoff. the consequences are not pleasant to behold. in the words of prof. alexander bickel of the yale law school: i think it altogether probable that under a system of popular election the situation would be as follows: the runoff would be, not an occasional occurrence, but the typical event. the major party nomination would count for much less than it does now and might even eventually begin to count against a candidate. there would be little inducement to unity in each party at or following conventions. coalitions would be formed not at conventions, but during the period between the general election and the runoff. all in all, the dominant positions of the two major parties would not be sustainable. this sort of unstructured, volatile multi party politics may look more open. so it would be infinitely more open to demagogues, to quick cure medicine men, and to fascists of left and right. it would offer, no doubt, all kinds of opportunities for blowing off steam and for standing up uncompromisingly for this or that cause, or passionately for one or another prejudice. but people who think that our democracy would become more participatory fool themselves. weaker, yes. more participatory in any real sense, no. while men continue to take varying positions on issues, compromise and coalition remain unavoidable. the only question is when and how coalitions are formed and compromises take place. coalitions are now formed chiefly in the two party convention, which are relatively open and accessible and can certainly be made more so. in a multi party system, the task of building coalitions will be relegated to a handful of candidates and their managers in the period between the election and the run off. the net result will simply be that the task will be performed less openly, and that there will be less access to the process. governments will be weaker, less stable and less capable than our governments are now of taking clear and coherent actions. where multi party systems have been tried, they have been found costly in just these ways, and they have scarcely yielded the ultimate in participatory democracy or good government. nor have they lasted. we are persuaded that direct election would encourage a disastrous multiplication of political parties. griffin tydings plan no cure for the ills of direct election some proponents of direct election, most notably senators griffin and tydings, have expressed concern that the run off provision of s.j. res. 1 would encourage splinter party candidacies and therefore make it impossible for anyone to obtain 40 percent in the first election. they suggest that elimination of the run off would insulate direct election against the threat of party proliferation. for one thing, the elimination of the runoff is only a partial solution to the problem of splinter parties. it would discourage some, but by no means all, troublesome minor party candidacies. it would have little effect, for example, on so called spoiler candidates those who run, not to win, but to prevent someone else form winning. the only way to guarantee that someone will be able to garner at least 40 percent of the vote under direct election is to limit sharply the number of candidates in a race. absent rigid, universally applicable rules narrowing the field of candidates, the “spoiler” strategy may still be profitably pursued under direct election even if the runoff provision is removed. the decisive factor now discouraging the formation of splinter parties, including “spoiler” parties, is the power of the states in the nominating and election process a power that derives from the institution of electoral votes. once the electoral vote system is abandoned in favor of direct election with or without a runoff the states will no longer have a significant voice in regulating minor party candidacies. they form and content of extant laws governing party and candidate eligibility differ widely from state to state. under direct election, however, this diversity could not be tolerated, since it might produce a sufficient number of minor candidacies to prevent a major candidate from obtaining at least 40 percent of the vote. as we point out below, a uniform federal rule on candidate eligibility will be necessary. congress will have to pass and enforce laws covering all the matters now regulated by state law, and the myriad functions now undertaken by 50 secretaries of state will have to be performed by a single national authority. the advocates of direct election, however including those who would eliminate the run off have yet to inform us as to the nature and content of this newly required body of federal law. what criteria of eligibility will congress use to narrow the field of candidates? will it still be possible to appear on the ballots of some states but not others? what would be the qualifications to appear on the ballots of all 50 states? it simply will not do, as some propose, to put off until later the consideration of what these new federal regulations should be. it is possible that the elimination of the run off may reduce the threat of some splinter parties. but, with that qualification, our arguments against s.j. res. 1 apply with equal force against the griffin tydings proposal. moreover, we find it intriguing that the griffine tydings plan should seize upon the allegedly antiquated and outmoded electoral vote system as the remedy for the deficiencies of direct election. if the electoral vote system is good enough to save us from the pitfalls of direct election, why is it unacceptable in the first place? why should we rely upon the electoral college to get us out of a mess when its retention would prevent the mess in the first place? direct election would destroy state political power one of the distinctive features of the american party system is that our parties are essentially state dominated: the so called “national” parties are, in fact, coalitions of state parties; and the state parties, in turn, are coalitions of county and local party organizations. the major parties are thus organized from the grassroots up a feature which enables them to accommodate a wide diversity of competing interests at the state and local level, and helps to keep elected officials responsive to state and local needs. what brings the hundreds, perhaps thousands of state and local party units together is the attempt, every 4 years, to capture the presidency. it is the role of the states as states in that process which accounts for the fact that our “national” parties are state based. and this structure of the parties reinforces the power of the states as members of the union. the most obvious symbol of the state orientation of the major parties is the national convention. delegates come to the conventions as representatives of their states, and voting power is allocated in proportion to electoral vote strength. direct election, of course, would destroy the utility of having delegates selected or votes distributed in this manner. there would be no reason whatsoever for the states as such to be represented; delegates would most likely represent interest groups. but without the states to act as mediators of compromise, there would be no way to determine beforehand what groups should be represented, or in what proportion. it is doubtful, indeed, whether there would be conventions at all under direct election. the logic of direct election leads inexorably toward presidential primaries, perhaps regional, but most likely national in scope. one could imagine without much difficulty a series of regional primaries, and, thereafter, a series of national primaries preceding the first election to which must be added the likelihood of a run off election after that. it is apparent that the role of the states in the electoral college contributes greatly to national stability; it also contributes greatly to the cohesion of state party organizations. cohesion or the lack of it will depend on may other factors as well, such as the strength and appeal of state and national party leaders, the volatility of issues at any given time, and the strength of the opposition party. but the importance of cohesion in state party organizations is obvious. in most states, most of the time, a single party organization is able to coordinate presidential, gubernatorial, senatorial, congressional, and other campaigns and can thus act as a mediator among the conflicting aims of politicians and interest groups. but once the states as states are removed from the presidential election process, a strong inducement toward state party cohesion will also be removed. we cannot with any confidence predict what new forms party organization might assume; we can confidently predict, however, that a significant restructuring of state and hence national party organizations would take place. that restructuring, in turn, would alter in unforeseen ways the power of the states to carry on political business, especially in relation to the national government. we simply do not know with any precision how much of a governor’s or a senator’s or a congressman’s power derives from his state’s role in the electoral college. we may be certain, however, that it is often considerable, and that presidents are influenced by it. but for the electoral college, we might have had very different, party organizations; and if we were at liberty to begin all over again, we might well wish to go about it differently. but we are now living in 1970 and we are carrying on political business according to laws, customs, and habits which have grown up around the attempt to carry a majority in the electoral college. an alteration in the mode of presidential election will necessarily affect the character of every institution related to the presidency, just as it will affect the attitudes and expectations which accompany u a 150 year old tradition. to pretend that such thing are not relevant, or to push them aside for “later” consideration, or to say that they must be abolished because they do not comport with the mathematical abstractions of “one man, one vote,” is to indulge a naiveté that borders on the irresponsible. the electoral college asks, in effect, “who is maine’s choice for president?”, “who is kentucky’s?”, “who is texas’s?”, “nebraska’s?”, “california’s?”, “hawaii’s?”, and so on. in so doing, the electoral college shores up the power of the states in the union. the commonly voiced argument that the presidency is a “national” office and therefore demands a “national” as applied to the united states must include the most distinctive feature of our constitution, a constitution which established, in mr. justice chase’s famous phrase from his opinion in texas vs. white, 74 u.s. 700 “an indestructible union of indestructible states.” some have lamented that fact, but no one can deny its significance. nor can any proposal to reform the presidential election system ignore that fact without damaging the entire constitutional balance. what should be represented in the presidential elections are4 not only everyday political, social, and economic interests, but that paramount interest which is the precondition for the effectuation of all others: the preservation of those institutions which are essential to the maintenance of political equality. chief among there, surely, is the federal system. the details of the philadelphia convention have long since receded into the textbooks, but the substance of the framers’ wok endures 200 years later in the structure of our governmental institutions. the key compromise at that convention was the creation of the federal system itself. this was not simply a compromise between large and small states on the matter of representation. it was a compromise on the natureof the union, on the relationship between the national government as a whole and the states as a whole. the senate, with equal representation, was to represent the people as citizens of states. the house, with representation proportioned to population, was to represent the people as citizens of the union. the bicameral structure of congress, however, was not the only result of this great compromise. the federal principle was incorporated within the presidency itself, by the involvement of the states in the presidential election process. the result is a delicately counterbalanced structure which, in the words of prof. alexander bickel, cures the inevitable under representation of the large states in congress, while at the same time requiring a sectional distribution of the vote that elects the president, thus making possible combinations that also give advantage to the smaller states. this is just a long way of saying that the genius of the present system is the genius of a popular democracy organized on the federal principle. the proponents of direct election may reply that they bear no animus against the federal system; that, on the contrary, they support it by recommending retention of state equality in the senate. state equality in the senate is certainly a strong underpinning of federalism, but with the great powers at the disposal of the president, would it not be foolish to rely upon the senate alone as the bulwark of the federal system? certainly, the framers did not think that equality of representation in the senate would be sufficient which is why they decided to give the states a role in the selection of presidents, a role that has been reinforce by our federally structured political parties. if one day, someone comes forward to say that it is surely an absurdity to give new york and hawaii equal representation in the senate; that a recent computer study has conclusively demonstrated that a citizen of new york is disfranchised 33 times relative to a citizen of hawaii, and that, in so important a matter as the passage of national legislation this is tantamount to a denial of equal protection of the laws when that day comes, what argument can the proponents of direct election make to defend state equality in the senate? the proponents of direct election must be asked how they proposed to defend the federal system in principle. it is one thing for them to say that they favor the retention of the federal system; it is quite another fro them to make an argument for federalism on the basis of the logic which impelled them to propose direct election in the first place. the federal system is an explicit departure from the doctrine of mere numerical majorities, from the doctrine of “one man, one vote.” if no departure from that doctrine is to be permitted in the presidency, by what reasoning is it to be defended in the federal system? conversely, if it is to be tolerated in the federal system, why should it not be tolerated in the presidency? direct election would undermine the separation of power one of the least discussed but most dangerous aspects of direct election is its tendency to undo the delicate balance among the three branches of the national government. proponents of direct election may argue that their proposal will have no effect upon the separation of powers, but we have nothing more than their unsubstantiated assertions that this will be the case. separation of powers is rightly and most commonly thought of as referring to the distribution of functions among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches; but the manner of that distribution exists in part by virtue of the balance which was struck between the states as a whole and the national government as a whole. among the considerations weighed by the framers in designing the presidency was the desirability of providing the president with a constituency essentially independent from that of congress and that of the states. the purpose of an independent constituency was forthrightly stated: to give energy to the executive, to avoid that disunity and frustration which might arise if the president were overly indebted to congress or to the states for his election or reelection. but there was an equally strong desire to prevent the president from abusing the great powers of his office. this latter desire was carried out, first, by involving the states in the election process; and second, by distributing governmental powers at the national level, chiefly as between the two dominant branches. in practice, the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches has sometimes rested with the white house, sometimes with congress, and sometime most frequently  somewhere in between. the constitution is content to remain flexible on this point; but its flexibility is not wholly subject to the contingencies of the moment. the balance can and does shift back and forth without adversely affecting he principle of separation. under direct election, there is a strong likelihood that the entire constitutional balance will come undone. for there is more to the relationship between president and congress than the formal separation of powers on paper will reveal. senators and representatives are members of political parties, and on the national level parties derive what unity they have form the attempt to carry a majority in the electoral college. insofar as the future under direct election can be foreseen at all, it is clear that there will be a radical restructuring of state and national party organizations. just as it is difficult to say with precision how much of a state’s power derives from its role in presidential elections, it is difficult to say how much congressional influence with the president rests on the fact that senators and congressmen occupy positions of influence within state and national party organization. once the states as states are excluded from the presidential election process, the subsequent restructuring of state and national party organizations will necessarily affect members of congress both in their capacity as representatives of their states and in their individual and collective relations with the president. but who will be affected, and whether favorably or unfavorably, cannot be predicted beforehand. it is true that, even under direct election, the legislative powers of congress would still account for the lion’s share of congressional influenced; but the contingencies affecting the use of those powers would be far different from those with which we are now familiar. congress has been accustomed to deal with a president who is in part dependent upon, and therefore restrained by, the states. a president who is not only not dependent upon the states, but whose political obligations will bear no predictable relation to extant party organizations, may be an entirely different creature. direct election would radicalize american public opinion the central political goal of the constitution and the electoral college in particular is the creation of reasonable majorities, that is, of majorities which will not prey upon the rights of others. the constitution and the electoral college seek to accomplish this task by providing salutary incentives to compromise by rewarding moderation and penalizing extremism. this process requires for it effectuation a blurring rather than an accentuation of the differences among men. the genius of our present method of election may be said to consist precisely in its ability to reveal what men have in common and to conceal what they do not. the significance of this accomplishment should not be underestimated. given the paramount importance of the presidency in political affairs generally and in party organization in particular, the compromises which are made before, during, and after a presidential campaign tend to filter down through the entire political system. thus, in the normal course of events, presidential campaigns have a moderating influence on the character of american public opinion as a whole. indeed, it is sometimes said that our presidential campaigns are drab, uninteresting affairs. it seldom occurs to those who make that comment that the phenomenon is more a virtue than a vice. the relatively mild tone of presidential campaigns derive from the fact that both major parties have to make eventually the same compromises because the electoral college forces both to campaign i all or most of the states. most of the difficult compromises are worked out within the parties before election campaigns, rather than between the parties during or after election campaigns. and the major compromises are worked out at the state rather than the national level. the fact that the major compromises re worked out early, within parties, and at the state level produces a number of salutary consequences; (1) it reduces the number of compromises which have to be made at the national conventions, and makes the job of party unification easier; (2) it leads to moderation in platforms and candidates; (3) contributes to the cohesion of state party organizations. under direct election, it is difficult to see how or when these salutary compromises would be worked out. it does not suffice to say that they will be worked out within extant party organizations, because there is no guarantee that extant party organizations will continue. once the states as states are removed from the electoral process, an interest group would face little compulsion to compromise with competing groups in its resident state. in fact, it might be penalized for doing so. far greater would be the incentive to aline with similar interest groups elsewhere, who would be under no compulsion to compromise within their states. there would thus be a national trend away from the major parties, which are state based, toward single interest splinter parties; and since no one would be forced to compromise until after the election, there would be a widespread tendency toward extremism. compromises would ultimately have to be made, but they would be made only at the last minute: and because each group participating in the final compromise would have been encouraged toward extremism beforehand the ultimate resolution of differences would be more difficult to achieve. the compromises, in short, would be both hastily contrived and inherently unstable. the winning coalition, however numerous would have difficulty governing. the “media masters” mr. theodore h. white quite rightly testified that direct election would change the nature of our presidential campaigns. he said: our presidential campaigns right now are balanced in each party to bring a compromise, to eliminate the extremes of both sides, and create a man who has at least the gift of unifying his party and thereafter the nation. once you go to the plebiscite form of vote you get the more romantic, the more eloquent and the more extreme politicians, plus their hacks and tv agents polarizing the nation rather than bringing it together. it is that fundamental erosion of the u.s.a. that horrified me… and as mr. white has written: if states are abolished as voting units, tv becomes absolutely dominant. campaign strategy changes from delicately assembling a winning coalition of states and becomes a media effort to capture the largest share of the national “vote market.” instead of courting regional party leaders by compromise, candidates will reply on media masters. issues will be shaped in national tv studios, and the heaviest swat will go to the candidate who raises the most money to buy the best time and most “creative” tv talent. direct election would undermine moderate influence the creation of a reasonable majority in a country of this size and diversity is a task of enormous magnitude. the number and variety of interests are such that any majority must necessarily be a coalition of minorities, each of which, quite naturally, tends to prefer its own interest to those of others. the peculiar “magic” of our present system is precisely that it forces every group to see the satisfaction of its own interest as depending in large part on the satisfaction of other interests. but the majority retains the character of its parts, which is to say that a majority is only temporarily harmonious. a majority within either major party is constantly in tension, with the result that a party’s capacity to command the allegiance of its followers in power or out is constantly being challenged. a coalition which wins at one election may not win a at the next a fact which induces party leaders and presidents to seek new bases of support and to be very wary of alienating any significant group presently loyal to their party. the electoral college says, in effect, that so long as presidents are going to be indebted to certain interests for their election or  what may be more important for their reelection, it is better to have those interests funneled through the mediating influence of the states (a) because the states as members of a federal union ought properly to be represented as states in the presidency: and (b) because the interests to which a president will be indebted will thereby be moderate in character. under direct election, neither of these considerations are deemed important. the consequence is not only that the power of the states will be diminished, but that presidents will be directly influenced by highly ideologized and uncompromising interest groups. under direct election, a president would at once be driven toward demagogy and freed from the salutary restraints now imposed by the states and our state based party organizations. we may obtain majorities under direct election, but will we be able to live with them? direct election would endanger minority rights so successful has the electoral college been that most americans are inclined to forget that they are, in one or more senses, members of a minority  geographic, ethnic, religious, social, or economic. under our present system, to be a member of the losing party carries no long term liability: it neither invites invidious discrimination nor endangers the security of one’s liberty. we are therefore inclined to think of “minorities” in terms of others, as those proverbial “other fellows”. nonetheless, the fact remains that each of us is a member of a potentially vulnerable minority. what is true of one minority will, soon or late, be true of every other. this fact, as we say, has been obscured by the very success of the electoral college in putting together widely dispersed and virtually all inclusive pluralities. but significance of being a member of one or more minorities, at present largely obscured for most, might be much greater under a different system of election, especially direct election. one’s fundamental rights may very well be affected by whether or not he is a member of the winning coalition. the power of all minorities, everywhere, of whatever kind, comes from the skill with which they are able to join themselves to other minorities. it is a string of such minorities which constitutes a majority of a winning plurality. a minority which fails to aline itself with other minorities is a minority which finds its political power greatly diminished. one of the chief virtues of the electoral college is that it not only encourages such alliances, but virtually requires them. it builds moderate majorities while protecting the interest of all minorities that are willing to compromise. under direct election, with its emphasis on mere numbers, the strength of most so called minorities especially those which lack significant numbers would likely be diminished. congressman william clay testified on this point: i firmly believe that the direct popular vote would inhibit the political influence of minority groups. the present system maximizes the importance of urban regions and especially of the high cohesion minority groups. the black vote presently and potentially registered is more effectively applied within the two party system which has evolved from the electoral system. and i am convinced that the minority vote would likely follow a separationist trend without the cohesive influence of that electoral system. the price extracted by the electoral college for the political success of minorities is compromise. anything which discourages compromise in fact, or delays it in time, diminishes the power of minorities and encourages extremism accordingly. under our two party system, which is held together by the electoral college, those minorities which are not permanently wedded to one party have an opportunity to switch their support with maximum effect; for the loss of one is compounded by a gain for the other. the consequence is, in the words of prof. harry v. jaffa, that each major party is under an inducement to be hospitable to minorities within the opposing party; and, on the other hand, that minorities are under an inducement so as to moderate their demands that they are negotiable within both major parties. (“the nature and origin of the american party system,” in equality and liberty, 1965, p. 7) the multiplication of parties, the removal of the states from the electoral process, and the other inducements toward extremism that would result from direct election all these factors would diminish the power of minorities by encouraging them, so to speak, to price themselves out of the political market. direct election would be an invitation to fraud one of the most calamitous and probable consequences of direct popular election will be the increased incidence of election fraud. at present, whenever and wherever fraud occurs, its impact is limited to determining the winner of a state’s electoral vote. the incentive to steal votes is now restricted to close contests in states which have a sufficiently large electoral vote to alter the final result. thus, fraud can be profitable only in a few states, and is seldom capable of affecting the national outcome. in his testimony during the judiciary committee hearings, mr. theodore white described this limitation on the impact of fraud. he said: right now, what you have in the country is a system of self sealing containers. again, i speak the language of the press. if the crooks in illinois, if the crooks in cook county are going to steal votes, each state has built up some sort of antibody system, so that it seals the theft, the stealing, the rigging of elections. there are certain states like minnesota, or connecticut, california, oregon, where i think the votes are counted with scrupulous honesty. but if the margin is going to be as thin as they were in 1960 and 1968, i can see the majority of honest states crumbling just like that. under direct election, a premium would be placed on stealing every vote in every precinct in every state. there would be no mechanism to prevent voting fraud from having a direct impact on the choice of the president. as votes are tabulated and reported in the eastern states, for example, great pressure will develop in western states to get every possible vote even for a candidate who has no chance of winning in order to offset early election returns from the east. mr. white cautioned: there is an almost unprecedented chaos that comes in the system where the change of one or two votes per precinct can switch the national election of the united states. now we have 180,000 voting boxes in the precincts in the uni ted states, and if by 10 or 11 o’clock it is going to be as close as 1960 or 1968, i hesitate to think of what is going to happen in the western precinct boxes and some of the southern precinct boxes. in the case of a close popular election, such as in 1960 and in 1968, the determination of the presidential candidates and their ardent supporters to win will place great temptations before every election official in the country. those who control the polling places, whether they are state or federal officials, may succumb to the pressure to obtain the largest popular vote margin for their favorite candidate. recalling the partisan nature of the deliberations of the national election commission established to resolve the hayes tilden controversy of 1876, professor bickel told the judiciary committee: * * * it seems to me inevitable if you go to the popular election system to set up, not only on an ad hoc basis, but on a permanent basis, national vote counting, and i for one…am not at all that happy about central vote counting. honest men, when centrally in charge of a computer in washington may be even more tempted than honest men in this or that county in the western part of the country or in the eastern part of the country. mr. white dramatically described what might occur on election night under direct elections: i wonder whether you can imagine what the scenario of election night might be with the entire nation hanging awake for the returns if we had another election as close as 1960 or 1968 with no one knowing what was happening. you all remember how in 1960 when the connecticut vote was coming in strong for john f. kennedy. eisenhower took to the air to plead with the people of california to get out there and vote. connecticut closes 3 hours earlier than california; i think about 8 hours earlier than hawaii. once those eastern votes start piling up from the big cities one way or another, the pressure, the urge to and if it is a close election you can’t steal a real election, a real majority, but if it is a close election, that election night would be an invitation to have militia out guarding the ballot boxes the next morning. the likelihood of an increase in minor party presidential candidacies and the probability, therefore, that a runoff will become a common occurrence under direct election, make even more likely the prospect of election fraud. the encouragement which direct popular election would give to fraud could very well turn american presidential elections into nightmares of charges and countercharges, of chaos and crisis. during the days following a presidential election, the determination of a winner could become the regular and expected focus of political turmoil. direct election would encourage challenges and recounts one of the most serious threats to our national stability under direct election would be the probability of contested elections. a contested election under any system is certainly dangerous. but as ernest brown, langdell professor of law at harvard, testified, under direct election “the mere fact of contest is a disaster.” under the present system, the popular vote in most states most of the time is insulated against challenge and recount. only extremely close and bitter contests in certain strategic states would even tempt one of the major parties to call for a recount. under direct election, however, the popular vote in every state would be open to the perpetual threat of challenge. whether a candidate wins or loses, a state by a large or small margin of votes, recounted votes in that state under direct election could still affect the national result. as professor brown explained: * * *close election lead to contest. and with direct election, the contest would be nation wide. every ballot box, every voting machine, would be subject to contest. he went on to illustrate how nationally contested elections would develop under direct election: if one candidate contests a certain area, his opponent, to protect himself, warns of a contest where he thinks something might have been adverse to him. and in a little while, the whole electorate is involved. the uncertainties surrounding a recount to determine the outcome of a close presidential election could paralyze our nation. even the mechanical aspects of a sizable recount would be dangerous enough, but if legal questions concerning voter qualifications and other matters were to be raised, as they surely would be, the period of the recount would be nothing short of chaotic. to theodore h. white, the spectre of the recount under direct election is a “nightmare.” he put it this way: i do not think direct election would have worked. it would have failed us twice in the last election. in the 1960 election i have never been able to get the full story mr. nixon spent several hours wondering whether he should challenge or not, and they began to examine the laws of the various states. you could not have a recount in missouri until some time in early spring. the laws as to recounts were different everywhere. it is a nightmare to me that we should live through 1960 and 1968 under the proposed amendment. prof. charles black explained to the committee how he felt the professional politicians would call for recounts under direct election in close contests: it would become the duty of the manager of anybody’s campaign that might be advantaged by a recount to search very carefully in good faith for fraud, irregularity, and the sort of technical objections to voting that you refer to, so that even without those willful obstruction elements, i should think that in a close election, it would be almost inevitable that the vote everywhere would be scrutinized and contested, and every possible irregularity sought after, whereas, under the present system, it usually does not matter and people just do not bother with it. mr. richard goodwin outlined to the committee his thoughts on the recount problem under direct election: eliminating the electoral college can, as many have pointed out, transform the frequent and inevitable charges of election irregularity and fraud into demands for a nation wide recount. since voting is now by state those charges are made with passion and they are allowed to lapse because even a charge in a particular state would rarely affect the national electorate result. however, if only the popular vote counted, then a recount in the few states could change the result. after all, two of our last three presidents had popular vote margins smaller than 5 percent of the vote in the state of illinois alone. in such a situation there would be incentive to pursue reasonable charges of irregularity and fraud. counter charges would be inevitable. and of there was any substance to the allegations a nationwide recount would not be merely likely but inevitable. such a protest could continue for months, in election commissions and in the courts, while the country waited to find out who had been elected.” there can be no doubt that the present system protects the nation from the paralysis of recounts. professor brown characterized the protection this way: * * * the present system insulates the states. when the vote is counted by the states, those lines insulate the area of contest and keep it local, and they insulate the significance of the contest. professor black also testified at length on the protections which the present system offers against the possibility of recounts and contests. he said: we have now compartmentalization of the recount problem, like the compartmentalization of a ship. if it springs a leak in one part, that part is sealed off from the others. the recount problem is an infrequent incident, because very often the state in which fraud is charged of error is charged will be one which, on inspection of the electoral totals, does not matter anyway. it is clear that recounts will be a disastrous problem of the united states should direct election of the president become law. too may thoughtful experts have mentioned the recount problem for it to be only the idle speculation of those who would oppose direct election for political reasons. we believe the political stability of this nation is the issue at stake; the senate, before voting on the direct election proposal, should try to imagine this nation, gripped by controversy, having to undergo a national recount every time there is a close election. direct election would necessitate federal control of elections there is no question that rigid uniformity must be an integral part of the direct election proposal if the one man, one vote rule is to be truly implemented. if the president is to be popularly elected in a nationwide election, state boundaries are jurisdictions will become inconveniences. all states would, of necessity, have to conform their election laws to a single federal standard. serious questions must be raised concerning the new election machinery and standards which must be created in order to have a smoothly run national plebiscite. federal laws or guidelines would have to be enacted to regulate, among other things, the eligibility of parties and candidates; the counting of ballots and the declaration of the winner; the validating and counting of absentee ballots; the penalties and prohibitions applicable to elections; the registration deadlines and a host of related matters now covered by state laws. indeed, it is possible to envision a federal election board charged with total responsibility for running the election down to and including the staffing of 180,000 polling places. v. specious arguments concerning the electoral college direct election would create some dramatic problems and bring some fundamental changes to our electoral process. these have been discussed in detail in the preceding section of this report. before concluding this analysis of s.j. res. 1, it is necessary to look at a few of the specious arguments made by the majority concerning the electoral college. most of these take the form of “what might have happened if * * *” the “faithless elector” the “faithless elector” argument holds that electors may violate the implied pledges which bind them to vote for the most popular candidate in their state. it is true that electors are frequently not bound by state law to vote for the winner of a popular plurality of their states, and it has been argued that federal legislation would be powerless to compel them to do so. nevertheless, custom, self interest, and a sense of moral obligation have combined to do what the law has failed to require. the consequence is that electors, have for some symbolic purpose (as in 1968), hardly ever violate their pledges. the record on this point is unmistakable in its implications: out of more than 16,000 electoral votes which have been cast, electors have violated their pledges only six or seven times. in no case did the electors’ chicanery ever threaten to alter the outcome of an election. still, the freedom of electors does not lend itself to mischief. that potential mischief, however, can be easily remedied without abolishing the electoral system altogether. either the office of elector can be abolished, or the electors’ pledge made binding by constitutional amendment. but to abolish the electoral vote system because of potentially faithless electors is a classic case of throwing out the baby with the bath water. “a shift of only so many votes . . .” among the most frequently heard arguments against the electoral system is that which holds that a shift of only x thousand votes in y number of states would have caused the winner of the popular vote to lose the electoral vote. of all the specious arguments, this is perhaps the most specious. one is of course free to surmise, after election statistics are tabulated, that the shift of a few votes here or a few there might have changed the outcome. that, however, is true of election statistics generally and bears no special relation to the electoral college. what gives this specious argument the favor the favor it would not otherwise enjoy is the theoretical possibility under the electoral college of having a popular vote winner who is an electoral vote loser. in order for such to happen and it never has a precise number of votes must shift in specified states; otherwise, the shift will have no effect on the outcome. the clinker in the argument, of course, is that these shifts, so horrible to imagine in retrospect, never in the point of fact take place. the shifting that critics of the electoral system are always talking about exists nowhere but in their own retrospective imaginations. it is shifting which might have taken place mathematically speaking but which never occurs in fact. as to why such shifts do not take place, the critics have never provided an answer. “if we had had direct election back in …” critics of the electoral college frequently attempt to apply electoral reform plans to prior election statistics in the effort to see whether a different result would have obtained. although well intentioned, this attempt is essentially futile, for it is simply impossible to say what the outcome of a prior election might have been under a different system. the size of the vote, its distribution, the candidates, even phenomena are primarily the products of the particular election system in which they occur. hence any effort to say that, in such and such a year, the outcome under direct election might have been different is only a playful speculative exercise; but it is not in any sense an argument against the existing system. the 11 largest states a commonly heard indictment of the electoral college, one which the majority report embraces, is that the 11 largest states (plus another small state or the district of columbia) would suffice to carry a candidate into office. the conclusion one is supposed to draw from this argument is that the 11 largest states are therefore in a position to dictate to the other 39. but what those who use this essentially emotional argument always conveniently forget to add is that the very compromises which enable a candidate to carry the 11 larges states also enable him to carry many others as well. and that is precisely why no candidate has ever won with anything like 11 states. in point of fact, only one president in this century (john f. kennedy) was ever elected with less than a majority of the states supporting him. that exception excluded, no one in this century has ever won with less than 29 states, and the average number carried by the winner has been nearly 37. it should be noted that the proponents of direct election who fault the present system for giving undue weight to the large states, conveniently ignore the fact that under the their scheme, the popular votes in only nine states as shown in appendix b could control the election. vi. the wallace phenomenon assaults against the electoral college seem to escalate in number and intensity during or just after nip and tuck election campaigns, or in years when a third party candidate has made inroads into traditional major party areas. most commonly, the hue and cry for reform comes from the ranks of the party which has just lost or fears it is about to lose the white house, or from that party which is most adversely affected by the third party movement. one of the rallying cries of this particular brand of assault many be stated in two words: “george wallace.” we believe that opinion about governor wallace is, or should be, irrelevant to the discussion of election reform. it is inevitable and natural that we should speculate as to what his political power might be under one electorate system as opposed to another; but such speculation should be confined to its proper place to political gatherings, to the classroom, to the newspapers and the journals of opinion, or wherever such things are discussed. it has no place in a senatorial debate when the subject in issue is a constitutional is a constitutional amendment. we take the strongest possible exception to the unwarranted intrusion of personality into a debate which concerns the highest matters of state and which, therefore, imposes upon us the obligation to remove, as far as we are able, those emotional considerations which might unduly affect our deliberations. the importance of deciding what kind of electoral system we shall have is obscured by the passions which are inevitably excited by the considerations of particular personalities. to encourage those passions is to render a disservice to the senate and to the american people. a constitutional amendment will be with us long after governor wallace has disappeared from the scene. history is replete with examples of the danger of altering fundamental law in order to accomplish some immediate political purpose. since, however, the majority report raised the wallace cry, we have no choice but to reply. we submit that the electoral college, far from making it possible for governor wallace to precipitate a constitutional crisis, in point of fact has prevented just such a crisis from taking place. the majority report refers to the wallace movement as “the most powerful third party bid since 1924.” but the immediate and obvious question is: what happened to “the most powerful third party bid since 1924”? and the immediate and obvious answer must come forth: the same thing that has happened to every third party movement in american history nothing. the decisive question is not what the wallace movement intended in the past, or what it intends for the future. the decisive question, rather, is what actually happened? what actually happened was that, in spite of governor wallace’s intentions, his presidential effort was necessarily confined to a narrow sectional base. it was confined to a narrow sectional base precisely because the electoral college requires that a successful presidential campaign be conducted in all or most of the states, which requires, in turn, that a candidate make a broadly based appeal to the voters. moreover, because of the strong two party structure, many would be wallace supporters outside the south and even many within the south were induced to cast their ballots for one of the major party candidates. it will be replied that the wallace “problem” is not so much that of his winning as that of his being in a position to affect the outcome in the event no one obtains a majority of the electoral vote. a number of comments are in order: (1) third party movements are not created by the electoral college. they are the product of a discontent which asserts, in effect, that the major parties have abandoned a certain segment of the voters. third party sometimes have a harmful influence on the major parties, sometimes a salutary influence; but there is no way, so long as we are a democracy, to prevent third parties altogether. the crucial question is not whether there shall be third parties, but what actually happens to them. (2) despite third party movements, not since 1824 has anyone failed to obtain an electoral majority. in fact, the failure of that year was the proximate cause of the party and convention system we have today, which makes it highly unlikely that a major party candidate will ever fail to garner an electoral majority. (3) means exist to diminish “unscrupulous” bargaining other than by taking the radical step of abolishing the electorate college altogether. moreover, those who are concerned about “deals” among electors or in the house of representatives, might do well to ponder “deals” which would have to be made under senate joint resolution 1 between the first election and the runoff. since the majority report ventures to speculate on what governor wallace might do in the future under the electoral college, we are invited to speculate on what he or others might do under direct election. under direct election as we indicated earlier, there is absolutely no incentive for a candidate to moderate his views of to seek broad geographical support. nor is there any incentive for a voter who is attracted by a third party candidate to cast his ballot for what is now called a “major” party candidate. under the circumstances, a candidate would have everything to gain and nothing to lose by playing to deep rooted fears and prejudices. given the nature of the passions which are loosed in our time, on both the right and the left, and on a party candidate to out poll one of the so called “major party” candidates especially since the “major” parties as we now know them will probably cease to exist under direct election. those who fear george wallace, in short, will find more fertile ground to plow in direct election than they will in the electoral college. vii. summary and conclusion the current debate over electoral college reform has been unduly restricted by a myopic constitutional perspective. in this report, we have discussed the ultimate causes of that unfortunate shortsightedness: on the one hand, a well meant but dangerously naïve attempt to apply the logic of the “one man, one vote” decision to presidential elections, regardless of the consequences; and, on the other, an understandable but unfounded fear that something might go wrong at some future election. since in matters of constitutional reform perspective is everything, we have endeavored to show that “one man, one vote” can be bought only at the price of constitutional destruction and that the fears animating opponents of the electoral college have been greatly exaggerated. we have attempted to restore a proper perspective by discussing electoral reform and the presidency in relation to the constitutional and political structure of the nation as a whole. it is only in the light of that perspective that the proposal for direct election can be understood as an unnecessary and dangerous undertaking. it is unnecessary because the major objections to the present system can be accommodated without its wholesale destruction; it is dangerous if for no other reason than that we cannot predict with any confidence what the character and structure of american politics will be like under it. indeed, the matters left untouched by the proponents of direct election convince us that they are themselves rather unsure of the future under their own proposal. unless and until they come forward with firmer assurance about crucial aspects of their proposal, constitutional duty requires us to oppose their recommendations in the strongest possible terms. we do not intend, however, to rest our case solely on the ground of unforeseeable consequences. it is true that much of the future under direct election is murky and unpredictable; but there is much, also, that is not murky and what we can see seems to us perilous in the extreme. the electoral college is so intimately involved with the two party system, federalism, and the separation of powers that we do not see how these institutional arrangements can possibly survive under direct election in the long run. nor do we see how it will be possible, once the logic of direct election is accepted, to defend them in principle. the burden of proof, it seems to us, is properly upon the proponents of direct election. we have made what we believe to be compelling arguments against direct election. let the proponents now come forward and answer them. let them now take up the burden they so long ago sought to thrust upon the opposition. but let them come forward with something more than passionate appeals and hopeful assurances. let them come forward with sound arguments and hard facts. the electoral college may have its faults, but its true sins of commission and omission are not always apparent in the various and passionate bills of indictment which have traditionally been raised against it. for nearly a century and a half the electoral college has been condemned as the “tool” of every imaginable interest. conservatives have attacked it for producing liberal presidents; liberals have attacked it for producing conservative presidents. republicans have said that it favors democrats; democrats have said that it favors republicans. northerners have accused it of aiding the south; southerners have accused it of aiding the north. easterners have deplored an alleged advantage that it gives to the west; westerners have deplored and alleged advantage it gives to the east. city dwellers have lamented that it exaggerates the influence of rural folk; rural inhabitants have lamented that it exaggerates the influence of city dwellers. citizens of small states have argued that it is controlled by large states; citizens of large states have argued that it gives undue weight to the small states. this list might be expanded to encompass almost every political, sectional, economic, and social interest in the nation. indeed, the fact that the electoral college has been criticized so variously is more significant than the fact that it has been criticized so persistently. the confusion among the critics suggests, at the very least, that there is more to the electoral college than meets the eye of the discontented. for the contradictory character of the criticisms is the most potent proof one might adduce to demonstrate that the electoral college is not no, and has never been, the “tool” of any narrow political, sectional, economic, or social interest. yet, to take the more ardent critics at their word, one might well wonder how the republic has managed to survive all these years. yet, survive it does, and with it, an allegedly antiquated electoral system. after everything has been said about the electoral college, after the last indictment is in and perhaps even after the computers have had their day the fact remains that the electoral college has provided us with an extraordinary number of distinguished chief executives who have entered office after a solid demonstration of public support and have governed the nation honorably and well. it has given us men who, by and large, have been free from the corrupting influence of faction precisely because their method of election forces them to understand the public good as something more than the sum of the interests of their friends. it has given us presidents who have been for the most part independent of congress and the states, but well aware of the power and prerogatives of both. in short, the electoral college, in conjunction with the party system which grew up in response to it, now produces by more democratic means the very tasks that the framers thought should be accomplished by a select body of enlightened men: an energetic and independent and yet responsible and limited chief executive. thus, it will not do to say that the electoral college is antiquated or outmoded; no more viable institution, no a more salutary one, will be found today. let us, if need be, repair it; but let us not abandon it for the sake of a mathematical abstraction, or because we are angry that the world is not perfect. sam j. ervin, jr. roman l. hruska. hiram l. fong. strom thurmond. conversation based seminars for collegial pd, one day and multi day seminars, graduate credit seminars (ma degree), online and in person. coming soon! world war i & the 1920s! teachingamericanhistory.org is a project of the ashbrook center at ashland university 401 college avenue, ashland, ohio 44805 phone (419) 289 5411 toll free (877) 289 5411 email [email protected] © 2006 2025 ashbrook center designed by beck & stone

washington, d.c.    sixty three percent of u.s. adults currently agree with the statement that the republican and democratic parties do “such a poor job” of representing the american people that “a third major party is needed.” this represents a seven percentage point increase from a year ago and is the highest since gallup first asked the question in 2003. however, the current measure is not meaningfully different from the prior highs of 61% in 2017 and 62% in 2021, shortly after the january 2021 capitol hill riots. over the past two decades, majorities of u.s. adults have typically agreed that a third party is needed. the last time this wasn’t the case was in 2012, when americans were evenly divided. gallup also found close divisions in 2006 and 2008 polls. in 2003, a record low 40% called for a third party when 56% thought the parties were doing “an adequate job of representing the american people.” the latest data are based on gallup’s annual governance poll, conducted sept. 1 23, 2023, which finds both parties receiving low favorable ratings, as has been the case for most of the past two decades. typically, political independents are most likely to favor a third party, and that is the case this year, with 75% expressing this view. no less than 70% of independents have said a third u.s. party is needed since 2013. most often, support for a third party among democrats and republicans is below the majority level. however, this year’s poll shows 58% of republicans endorsing a third u.s. political party, up from 45% a year ago. the only other time more republicans than now expressed support for a third party was in a late january/early february 2021 conducted after the jan. 6 riots, the second impeachment of donald trump, and the presidential inauguration of joe biden. there has also been an uptick in support for a third party among democrats this year, from 40% to 46%, though still less than a majority back the idea. although the data are not conclusive due to small sample sizes, both conservative republicans and moderate/liberal republicans appear more likely to endorse a third party than they were a year ago. republicans’ support for a third party tends to vary based on whether a republican or democratic president is in office. on average, 49% of republicans have favored a third party in years when a democratic president is in the white house, compared with 38% in years of a republican incumbent. in contrast, independents’ and democrats’ views of a third party have been similar under both types of presidential administrations. for more than a decade now, most americans have expressed a desire for a third major political party, but none as powerful as the republican and democratic parties has emerged. third party candidates have, however, been thought to have played spoilers in key states in past presidential elections, including ralph nader in 2000 and jill stein in 2016. thus, it is unclear to what extent americans actually desire a third party, as opposed to just expressing their frustration with the two parties that contest elections and govern in the u.s. two party system. with the 2024 presidential election looming, noted educator cornel west has declared his candidacy for the green party nomination, and political scion robert f. kennedy jr. is expected to announce his independent presidential candidacy. in addition, the “no labels” organization is laying the groundwork to run a third party candidate that represents the political center. this effort is partly designed to address public sentiment in favor of a third party and dissatisfaction with a rematch of the 2020 election between donald trump and joe biden, both of whom are unpopular with u.s. adults. an effort similar to the no labels campaign in 2012 run under the “americans elect” banner was abandoned when no candidate met the minimum threshold for winning the party’s nomination. the no labels organization says it has no interest in playing a spoiler role and will not decide on its 2024 intentions until after the major party nominees have been determined. to stay up to date with the latest gallup news insights and updates, follow us on x. learn more about how the gallup poll social series works. view complete question responses and trends (pdf download). results for this gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted sept. 1 23, 2023, with a random sample of 1,016 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 u.s. states and the district of columbia. for results based on the total sample of national adults, the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. each sample of national adults includes a minimum quota of 80% cellphone respondents and 20% landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas by time zone within region. landline and cellular telephone numbers are selected using random digit dial methods. in addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls. (*) required this site is protected by recaptcha and the google privacy policy and terms of service apply. search, examine, compare and export nearly a century of primary data. americans' job approval ratings of congress and president joe biden are generally stable at low levels. unions are at a high ebb of support and perceived future power in the u.s. much of this reflects image gains made gradually over more than a decade. partisan differences have expanded over the past 20 years on some, but not all, core u.s. social and policy issues. the republican and democratic parties remain equally unpopular in the u.s. but americans lean toward the gop when it comes to safeguarding the nation's prosperity and military security. october 4, 2023 gallup https://news.gallup.com/poll/512135/support third political party.aspx gallup world headquarters, 901 f street, washington, d.c., 20001, u.s.a +1 202.715.3030

green party candidate jill stein (left) and libertarian chase oliver (right), among other third party candidates, are likely to draw votes away from front runners kamala harris and donald trump in the 2024 presidential election. photos by jacob lee green/sipa usa and francis chung/politico via ap images could a third party candidate ever win the us presidency? can voting third party send an effective message to mainstream politicians? is voting for a third party candidate wasting your vote or is it inadvertently helping one of the other candidates? by almost all accounts, the 2024 presidential race will be a nail biter between democrat and vice president kamala harris and republican and former president donald trump, based on the razor thin margins coming out of the swing states. but for voters not satisfied with either choice, who they’ll vote for instead and how that could impact an election this tight are questions on many people’s minds. for those voters, “there’s no good option for those people to register their discontent,” says boston university political history expert bruce j. schulman, william e. huntington professor of history at the college of arts and sciences. “that’s the problem with our [two party] political system.” from liberal voters frustrated with the us response to israel’s incursions into palestine and lebanon to conservatives tired of trumpian politics, alternative candidates jill stein (green party), cornel west (independent/justice for all party), chase oliver (libertarian), and claudia de la cruz (party for socialism and liberation), among others, are likely to siphon votes away from trump and harris. in an election that could be decided by how one small county in one state votes, could those third party votes be enough to tip the scales toward one candidate or another? to help assess the role third party candidates could play in this election, as well as their historical impact on elections, bu today spoke to schulman and to arjun vishwanath, a cas assistant professor of political science. bruce schulman: you can never say never, but it sure seems like no. the most successful third party candidacy came in 1912, when theodore roosevelt finished second and got around 27 percent of the popular vote. of course, he was a former president of the united states who hadn’t been renominated by his party and formed his own party. in recent times, h. ross perot’s third party candidacy in 1992 got 19 percent of the popular vote, the second most in us history but he got zero electoral votes. with the electoral college system, it’s highly, highly unlikely a third party candidate could win an election.the best way to understand third parties, i think, was said by the famous post world war two historian richard hofstadter. he said third parties are like bees: once they have stung, they die. with the more substantial third parties, like those that get enough support to qualify for debates, they often form out of a social movement due to the two major parties not addressing a concern or constituency. what almost always happens is that they sting, and then they die because one of the major parties appropriates their message. that’s kind of the role of third parties they can produce important changes in the political system. but none in the last century has ever threatened to take power. arjun vishwanath: there are a few types of reasons why voters might consider third parties. first, they may have ideological belief systems that don’t line up well with the party platforms. for example, someone might hold more libertarian views, and they would feel that neither the democratic nor republican nominees articulate their views. in a similar vein, they might be more extreme a socialist, say and think that neither party is good enough. in the 2024 election, this has manifested most prominently in the debates surrounding israel and gaza. some voters believe that neither joe biden nor kamala harris has been sufficiently responsive to the plight of the palestinians, and in doing so, they turn to other candidates, like stein or west. the second type of voter is one who is disaffected with the broader american political system. they might think that the system is rigged between wall street and washington, the elites are all the same and produce similar outcomes, and so on. schulman: we don’t totally know yet. in different states, there are different third parties on the ballot control over voting is entirely local in the united states, which is unlike almost any other modern democracy in the world. for now, it would seem that votes for the green party are going to be votes taken away from harris and the democrats, and votes for the libertarian party are going to be votes taken away from trump and the republicans. that’s certainly been the pattern since 2000. if you believe the polling for this election, it seems like third party candidates are actually poised to do less well than in recent elections. polls put the two biggest parties, the green party and the libertarian party, at around one percent of the popular vote, whereas in 2016, they got around four to five percent of the vote. that said, if this election is as close as is being predicted, [remember that] last time around, the key states were decided by 40,000 to 80,000 votes in some places. this year, that could mark the difference between victory and defeat. schulman: it’s very common to think of votes for a third party as wasted votes. certainly, anybody who is an advocate for either of the two major parties will tell you that. but, it all depends on what you think the purpose of voting is: if you think it’s only to decide who is going to win and take elective office, then surely voting third party is wasted. if you think that it’s a way for citizens to make statements about how they feel about the political system and what options they think they have, or would like to have, then you can see it as a statement. now, oftentimes those statements might end up being counterproductive. for example: if you think that the two major parties are both servants of conservative corporate interests and don’t truly advocate progressive causes and you vote for the green party, and because of that, trump becomes president, that’s not going to be advancing your views. but it is a way of making a statement.vishwanath: it depends on the context. most general elections are not too close, and so the effect of a marginal vote is essentially zero in those cases. to take massachusetts, for example, there is no way trump will win this state. i think it’s more accurate in these cases to think about one’s vote as expressing one’s preference for whom they most prefer, since whether someone votes for stein or harris will have no bearing on the final outcome [here]. it gets slightly trickier in more competitive jurisdictions. the probability that one vote swings michigan is infinitesimal but a bloc of say, 10,000 voters deciding they prefer stein over harris could be decisive. the concern here is that those stein voters may prefer harris to trump, but by voting for stein, they would permit trump to win, their least favored outcome. this may or may not be the case returning to the israel/gaza example, if those voters care primarily about that and believe that trump and harris are similar on the issue, then they may not mind too much if trump wins. but even if they do have a preference between the major party candidates, there is one more reason that their vote may “count.” the threat and follow through of third party voting can cause the major party candidates to change their platforms accordingly. the logic goes that if harris is worried about losing these voters, she may adopt a more palestine friendly stance. and if she fails to do so and these voters cast the decisive votes against her, then future democratic candidates will reorient their positions to gain these votes. vishwanath: the pros and cons are the same as in any other race if one is not voting in a decisive election. the pros are that the voter is likely casting a vote for a candidate they prefer most and is able to send a message in doing so. the cons, especially in a close election, is that they may end up with a worse alternative than the one they most prefer. if a pro life voter who is unhappy with trump’s pivot on the issue instead votes for the constitution party’s candidate (randall terry, an anti abortion activist) and produces a harris election in the process, harris will presumably be worse on abortion than trump from the perspective of the pro life voter. these are always the trade offs that go into third party voting. is voting for a third party candidate effective or is it a wasted vote? (and other third party questions) alene bouranova is a pacific northwest native and a bu alum (com’16). after earning a bs in journalism, she spent four years at boston magazine writing, copyediting, and managing production for all publications. these days, she covers campus happenings, current events, and more for bu today. fun fact: she’s still using her terrier card from 2013. when she’s not writing about campus, she’s trying to lose her terrier card so bu will give her a new one. she lives in cambridge with her plants. profile alene bouranova can be reached at abour@bu.edu boston university moderates comments to facilitate an informed, substantive, civil conversation. abusive, profane, self promotional, misleading, incoherent or off topic comments will be rejected. moderators are staffed during regular business hours (est) and can only accept comments written in english. statistics or facts must include a citation or a link to the citation. for third parties to have a significant impact will take a change from our first past the post, winner takes all electoral system to one that uses ranked choice voting. there are no wasted votes or spoilers with rcv because voters can back up their first choice for a third party candidate with 2nd or lower ranking for a major party candidate. a third party candidate is unlikely to win a majority in the first round and if neither major party candidate does either the voter’s 2nd choice will become active when their first choice is eliminated by having the lowest total. some kind of preference/ranked voting will encourage new voices to participate, enabling people to vote their passion, yet backing up that vote with realistic alternatives. unfortunately rcv is known to be highly flawed, often prematurely squeezing out the consensus candidate. and rcv is subject to exhausted ballots and election trickery. star voting, a “preference” (rather than “ranked”) approach has fewer flaws, but can still backfire. which is why i prefer negotiated consensus. we may not get too many bites at the election apple  prematurely selecting a flawed methodology could set back the effort by decades. state wide rcv was rejected in massachusetts in 2020. currently there is a home rule proposal promoting rcv for boston’s mayoral and district councilor races https://www.wbur.org/news/2024/06/13/ranked choice voting boston mayor city council election newsletter third party spoilers have tipped five presidential elections, and tens of thousands of local races. plurality winners, instead of majorities, are the issue, undermining the “representative” nature of our representative democracy. there are ways to mitigate this distortion  perhaps though a “negotiated consensus” election among the candidates https://gregblonder.medium.com/represent 379c1273f5f4 interestingly, charles dodgson (lewis carroll) made a similar suggestion in 1885. one thing that wasn’t discussed is the campaign finance rule that allow third party candidates to receive matching funds if they receive 5 25% of the popular vole (to be applied the next presidential election). i think folks are going to surprised, for one of the independent candidates may get close to 3 4% of the popular vote. the rest will barely get .5% of the popular vote. it is possible that one of the main independent candidates may get that 5% (barely). your lack of detail about perot’s candidacy, is clearly lackinig what really happened. when he dropped out of the race, he was winning every major poll. he had ~35 to 40% of the vote, with bush second and clinton third. so, he lost basically half his voters when he dropped out, and came back in. what is interesting is he drew from a diverse crowd of supporters. something like 25% were liberal, 35% conservative and the rest considered themselves independent. the % on races/sex/us region were remarkably close too. unlike the vote of today. this was before he dropped out. the final numbers are here…which is rougly half of what was there before he dropped out. a good third party candidate, has a very good chance when certain things are met. perot was rich, he cared, was kind and smart. he basically funded himself. which indicated to everyone, he was in it for the right reasons. don’t be fooled by the 2 party system. vote libertarian or green party, or some other obscure party…its a vote of dissension, showing people that we are better off having a few other viable parties. this would only make our country stronger in the long run. https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how groups voted 1992 vote your conscience. republicans & democrats have been f’ing us too long. robbed & unrepresented i would have liked to hear a discussion on the possibility of electoral reform in this country, particularly on the movement to adopted ranked choice (instant runoff) voting across the country, or the potential of adopting more proportional representational systems. my personal recommendation for any third party candidate is not to try to win 270 but instead try to win the 1 electoral from nebraska’s second district and/or maine’s second district and then work to make sure neither the republican nor the democrat get 270. then it goes to congress. which is why the free state project is more important than running a presidential candidate at the moment. so, if you are libertarian move to new hampshire. as a registered green rainbow party voter, i feel there is a real misunderstanding of third party and independent voters, why we vote the way that we do, and what we’re looking to change. ultimately, my goal and my value system look beyond the presidential nominee, and toward a congress that represents myriad parties. the present political system has created a false dichotomy of choices, in which citizens are conditioned to believe there are only two choices because it is intentionally set up that way, with funding, media coverage, primaries and electoral colleges promoting a two party system. however, i don’t believe any truly democratic society exists in a binary. the goal of both major parties is to remain in power. preventing the ‘other’ side from taking power ensures a see saw power struggle between two enemies. but they both ignore any third parties intentionally, because a see saw ensures they always have a chance to get back into power quickly; a merry go round would mean they’d have to take turns more often and build wider coalitions around topics. both major parties are highly invested in the same thing: capitalism and the america first/empire euphemism of “security,” at the expense of people all over the world who live with the wars and predatory natural resource grabs by american companies like apple and tesla. they both celebrate and laud record profits, a record stock market, record housing prices, record spending, linear growth, and high interest short term loans to stimulate the economy while wages remain stagnant and purchasing power declines. they both invest billions of dollars in policing, surveillance and warfare, which directly leads to climate change, inequities, racial discrimination, and global unrest. they both spend more money on the armed forces and tanks and bombs and military grade training than they do on arts and education. they just do it with a different tone, while squabbling out loud about identity politics like abortion and guns and healthcare… one side raising money while rarely passing legislation that would protect people, the other side pointing fingers and reworking the court system. this year, neither candidate even went through a true democratic primary process. one bullied potential opponents into not running against him in a primary even while on trial for several criminal and civil charges, and the other was hand selected by a candidate who hadn’t even run a primary campaign or debated fellow party members before he (reluctantly) stepped down. i am registered third party because i believe third parties are essential to democracy, and i believe democracy will fail… and soon… unless we embrace the idea of plurality and coalition governments. (one ranking by julius maximilians universität würzburg prior to the 2020 election already placed the united states as a “deficient democracy”: https://www.democracymatrix.com/ranking and several recent rankings show the u.s. state of democracy as declining.) i vote not as a statement or a rebuke, but as a dream of what democracy could and should look like, and as a commitment to a more diverse representative government of the people, by the people, and for the people. i am also registered third party because i believe that climate, soil, forests, waters, education, arts, universal healthcare, food, shelter and diplomacy should be at the heart of our government values and spending. not banking, profit, and militarization. furthermore, from a racial and social justice perspective, with an eye on healing colonizer induced trauma, i believe we owe it to the descendants of all those indigenous tribes who were here long before settlers to center and follow their relationship to the land and commitment to one another (through reparations and through representation and leadership in congress), and i believe we owe financial reparations to the descendants of enslaved people. neither major party considers these priority. the idea that “for now, it would seem that votes for the green party are going to be votes taken away from harris and the democrats, and votes for the libertarian party are going to be votes taken away from trump and the republicans,” rings false to me. more true, i believe is that votes for the democrats are taken away from the green party and socialist party and other progressive parties, and votes for the republicans may be taken away from the libertarian party and other conservative parties. there are so many people who are persuaded to vote mainstream party because of the massive messaging from both parties of “not this election; vote your conscience next time, but this time vote to prevent the opposition.” it’s very effective messaging. and when i lived in a swing state during one election many years ago, i did give my third party vote to a democrat. but it was truly given away. never when i have ever voted third party has my vote been “taken away” from a democrat or a republican. not one of them has ever earned my vote. your email address will not be published. required fields are marked * boston university’s alumni magazine news, opinion, community pioneering research from boston university

our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article. two party system, political system in which the electorate gives its votes largely to only two major parties and in which one or the other party can win a majority in the legislature. the united states is the classic example of a nation with a two party system. the contrasts between two party and multiparty systems are often exaggerated. within each major party in the united states, the republicans and the democrats, many factions are struggling for power. the presence of divergent interests under a single party canopy masks a process of struggle and compromise that under a multiparty system is out in the open. major influences favourable to the two party system are the use of single member districts for the election of representatives, the presidential system, and the absence of proportional representation. in great britain and the united states members of the national representative assemblies are chosen from single member districts, and the candidate polling the largest number of votes is the winner. such an electoral system compels a party to strive for a majority of the votes in a district or other electoral area. usually only two fairly evenly matched parties may successfully compete for office in a single member district, and a third party suffers recurring defeat unless it can swallow up one of the other parties. parties do not thrive under the certainty of defeat. a third party may have a substantial popular following and yet capture few seats in the representative body. with, for instance, 20 percent of the popular vote spread evenly over an entire country, such a party would not win a single seat. (under full proportional representation, it would be entitled to 20 percent of the seats in a legislative body.) the rise of the labour party in great britain, for example, virtually deprived the liberal party of parliamentary seats even when it had a substantial popular following. in addition to the single member district system, in the united states the presidential system induces parties to seek majority support. no fractional party can elect its presidential candidate, and third parties in national politics have proved to be protest movements more than serious electoral enterprises. the two party system is said to promote governmental stability because a single party can win a majority in the parliament and govern. in a multiparty country, on the other hand, the formation of a government depends on the maintenance of a coalition of parties with enough total strength to form a parliamentary majority. the weakness of the ties that bind the coalition may threaten the continuance of a cabinet in power. the stability shown by the government of the united states has not been entirely due to its party system, it has been argued, but has been promoted also by the fixed tenure and strong constitutional position of the president. the two party system moderates the animosities of political strife. to appeal for the support of a majority of voters, a party must present a program sympathetic to the desires of most of the politically active elements of the population. in the formulation of such a program an effort must be made to reconcile the conflicting interests of different sectors of the population. this enables the party, if expedient, to resist demands that it commit itself without reservation to the policies urged by any particular extremist element. in effect, the party is a coalition for the purpose of campaigning for office. in great britain and canada differences in program and in composition between the two major parties have been perhaps greater than in the united states. nevertheless, in all of these countries a broad area of agreement exists among the leading parties. with two major parties of similar views and of approximately equal strength competing for control of a government, it is possible for governmental control to alternate between the parties without shifts in policy so radical as to incite minorities to resistance.

a two party system is a political party system in which two major political parties[a] consistently dominate the political landscape. at any point in time, one of the two parties typically holds a majority in the legislature and is usually referred to as the majority or governing party while the other is the minority or opposition party. around the world, the term has different meanings. for example, in the united states, the bahamas, jamaica, and zimbabwe, the sense of two party system describes an arrangement in which all or nearly all elected officials belong to either of the two major parties, and third parties rarely win any seats in the legislature. in such arrangements, two party systems result from duverger's law, which states that winner take all systems tend to produce two party systems.[1][2][3][4][5][6] in such systems, while chances for third party candidates winning election to major national office are remote, it is possible for groups within the larger parties, or in opposition to one or both of them, to exert influence on the two major parties.[7][8][9][10][11][12] in contrast, in canada, the united kingdom and australia and in other parliamentary systems and elsewhere, the term two party system is sometimes used to indicate an arrangement in which two major parties dominate elections but in which there are viable third parties or independents that do win some seats in the legislature, and in which the two major parties exert proportionately greater influence than their percentage of votes would suggest. other parties in these countries may have seen candidates elected to local or subnational office.[13] malta is somewhat unusual in that while the electoral system is single transferable vote (stv), a form with proportional representation traditionally associated with a multi party system, minor parties have not had much success. politics is dominated between the center left labour party and the centre right nationalist party, with no third parties winning seats in parliament between 1962 and 2017 and since 2022.[14] a report in the christian science monitor in 2008 suggested that spain was moving toward a "greater two party system" while acknowledging that spain has many small parties.[15] a 2015 article published by washingtonpost.com written by academic fernando casal bértoa noted the decline in support for the two main parties, the people's party (pp) and the spanish socialist workers' party (psoe) in recent years, with these two parties winning only 52 percent of the votes in that year's regional and local elections. he explained this as being due to the spanish economic crisis, a series of political corruption scandals and broken campaign promises. he argued that the emergence of the new citizens and podemos parties would mean the political system would evolve into a two bloc system, with an alliance of the pp and citizens on the right facing a leftist coalition of psoe, podemos and the united left.[16] far right vox party became the third largest group in the spanish parliament in the late 2010s. in countries such as britain, two major parties which have strong influence emerge and tend to elect most of the candidates, but a multitude of lesser parties exist with varying degrees of influence, and sometimes these lesser parties are able to elect officials who participate in the legislature. in political systems based on the westminster system, which is a particular style of parliamentary democracy based on the british model and found in many commonwealth countries, a majority party will form the government and the minority party will form the opposition, and coalitions of lesser parties are possible; in the rare circumstance in which neither party is the majority, a hung parliament arises. sometimes these systems are described as two party systems, but they are usually referred to as multi party systems or a two party plus system. there is not always a sharp boundary between a two party system and a multi party system. canada has a multiparty system at the federal and provincial levels. some provinces have effectively become two party systems in which only two parties regularly get members elected, while smaller parties largely fail to secure electoral representation, and two of the three territories are run under a non partisan consensus government model rather than through a political party system. the provincial legislative assembly of alberta currently has only two parties; two party representation has also historically been common in the legislative assemblies of british columbia, new brunswick and prince edward island, although all did elect some third party members in their most recent provincial elections. the commonwealth caribbean while inheriting their basic political and voting system from great britain have become two party systems. the politics of jamaica are between the people's national party and the jamaica labour party. the politics of guyana are between the people's progressive party and apnu which is actually a coalition of smaller parties. the politics of trinidad and tobago are between the people's national movement and the united national congress. the politics of belize are between the united democratic party and the people's united party. the politics of the bahamas are between the progressive liberal party and the free national movement. the politics of barbados are between the democratic labour party and the barbados labour party. the united states has two dominant political parties; historically, there have been few instances in which third party candidates won an election. in the first party system, only alexander hamilton's federalist party and thomas jefferson's democratic republican party were significant political parties. toward the end of the first party system, the democratic republicans were dominant (primarily under the presidency of james monroe). under the second party system, the democratic republican party split during the 1824 united states presidential election into adams' men and jackson's men. in the 1828 presidential election, the modern democratic party formed in support of andrew jackson. the national republicans were formed in support of john quincy adams. after the national republicans collapsed, the whig party and the free soil party quickly formed and collapsed. in 1854 began the third party system when the modern republican party formed from a loose coalition of former whigs, free soilers and other anti slavery activists. the republicans quickly became the dominant party nationally, and abraham lincoln became the first republican president in the 1860 presidential election. the democrats held a strong, loyal coalition in the solid south. this period saw the american civil war where the south (which was mostly dominated by the southern democrats) attempted to secede as the confederate states of america, in an attempt to preserve racial slavery. the south lost the war and were forced to end slavery, and during the following reconstruction era the republicans remained the most popular party nationally while the democrats remained dominant in the south. during the fourth party system from about 1896 to 1932, the republicans remained the dominant presidential party, although democrats grover cleveland and woodrow wilson were both elected to two terms (non consecutively in the case of the former). the 1932 united states elections saw the onset of the fifth party system and a long period of democratic dominance due to the new deal coalition. democrat president franklin d. roosevelt won landslides in four consecutive elections. other than the two terms of republican dwight eisenhower from 1953 to 1961, democrats retained firm control of the presidency until the mid 1960s. in congress, democrats retained majorities in both houses for 60 years until the republican revolution, broken only by brief republican majorities. there was a significant change in u.s. politics in 1960,[17] and this is seen by some as a transition to a sixth party system. since the mid 1960s, despite a couple of landslides (such as richard nixon carrying 49 states and 61% of the popular vote over george mcgovern in 1972; ronald reagan carrying 49 states and 58% of the popular vote over walter mondale in 1984), presidential elections have been competitive between the predominant republican and democratic parties and no one party has been able to hold the presidency for more than three consecutive terms. throughout every american party system, no third party has won a presidential election or majorities in either house of congress. despite that, third parties and third party candidates have gained traction and support. in the election of 1912, theodore roosevelt won 27% of the popular vote and 88 electoral votes running as a progressive. in the 1992 presidential election, ross perot won 19% of the popular vote but no electoral votes running as an independent. modern american politics, in particular the electoral college system, has been described as duopolistic since the republican and democratic parties have dominated and framed policy debate as well as the public discourse on matters of national concern for about a century and a half. third parties have encountered various blocks in getting onto ballots at different levels of government as well as other electoral obstacles, such as denial of access to general election debates. since 1987, the commission on presidential debates, established by the republican and democratic parties themselves, supplanted debates run since 1976 by the league of women voters. the league withdrew its support in protest in 1988 over objections of alleged stagecraft such as rules for camera placement, filling the audience with supporters, approved moderators, predetermined question selection, room temperature and others.[18] the commission maintains its own rules for admittance[19] and has only admitted a single third party candidate to a televised debate, ross perot, in 1992.[20] some parts of the us have had their own party systems, distinct from the rest of the country. the republic of ghana since its transition to democracy in 1992 have a strongly institutionalized two party system led by new patriotic party and national democratic congress.[21] the politics of zimbabwe are effectively a two party system between the robert mugabe founded zimbabwe african national union patriotic front and the opposition coalition movement for democratic change. since the 1920s, the australian house of representatives (and thus the federal government) has in effect been a two party system. since the end of world war ii, australia's house of representatives has been dominated by two factions: the coalition has been in government about two thirds of time, broken by 4 periods of labor governments: 1972 1975, 1983 1996, 2007 2013, and since 2022. the alp is australia's largest and oldest continuing political party, formed in 1891 from the australian labour movement. the party has branches in every state and territory. the coalition is a near permanent alliance of several parties, primarily the liberal party of australia (australia's 2nd largest party) and national party of australia (4th largest). it was formed after the 1922 australian federal election, when the nationalist party (ancestor of today's liberal party) lost its absolute majority, and was only able to remain in government by allying with the country party (now called the national party). under the coalition agreement, if the coalition forms government then the prime minister will be the leader of the liberals, and the deputy prime minister will be the leader of the nationals. in theory, disagreements between the coalition's constituent parties would lead to the coalition being broken. however, the last time that this has happened at the federal level was in 1939 1940. one reason for australia's two party system is because the house of representatives (which chooses the prime minister of australia) is elected through the instant runoff voting electoral system. although voters can preference third parties and independents above the major parties, and the voting method has a reduced spoiler effect, there is still only one member per electoral division (ie: a winner take all system) and so major parties tend to win the vast majority of seats even if they need to rely on preferences to do so. for example, a labor candidate may win a seat with 30% of the vote for labor and 21% from australian greens voters who ranked labor second. on the other hand, the australian senate is effectively a multi party system, and a senate majority matching the house is very rare. it uses single transferable vote with multiple senators for each state/territory. this results in rough proportional representation and as a result, third parties have much more influence and often hold the balance of power. since 2004, the australian greens have been the third largest party in the country, with 8 13% of the national vote and an equivalent amount of senators. prior to this, the australian democrats was the third largest party. other current and past parties include one nation, the liberal democrats and family first. some australian states have seen the rise of minor parties at either the state or federal level (eg: centre alliance in south australia, katter's australian party in northern queensland, and the shooters, fishers and farmers party in western new south wales), while some have seen long periods of dominance by one party. some parties are absent entirely in parts of the country. most latin american countries also have presidential systems very similar to the us often with winner takes all systems. due to the common accumulation of power in the presidential office both the official party and the main opposition became important political protagonists causing historically two party systems.[22] some of the first manifestations of this particularity was with the liberals and conservatives that often fought for power in all latin america causing the first two party systems in most latin american countries which often lead to civil wars in places like colombia, ecuador, mexico, venezuela, the central american republic and peru, with fights focusing specially on opposing/defending the privileges of the catholic church and the creole aristocracy. other examples of primitive two party systems included the pelucones versus pipiolos in chile, federalists versus unitarians in argentina, colorados versus liberals in paraguay and colorados versus nationals in uruguay.[23] as in other regions, the original rivalry between liberals and conservatives was overtaken by a rivalry between center left (often social democratic) parties versus center right liberal conservative parties, focusing more in economic differences than in cultural and religious differences as it was common during the liberal versus conservative period. examples of this include national liberation party versus social christian unity party in costa rica, the peronista justicialist party versus radical civic union in argentina, democratic action versus copei in venezuela, the colombian liberal party versus the colombian conservative party in colombia, democratic revolutionary party versus panameñista party in panama and liberal party versus national party in honduras.[24] after the democratization of central america following the end of the central american crisis in the 1990s former far left guerrillas and former right wing authoritarian parties, now in peace, make some similar two party systems in countries like nicaragua between the sandinista national liberation front and the liberals and in el salvador between the farabundo martí national liberation front and the nationalist republican alliance. the traditional two party dynamic started to break after a while, especially in the early 2000s; alternative parties won elections breaking the traditional two party systems including rafael caldera's (national convergence) victory in venezuela in 1993, álvaro uribe (colombia first) victory in 2002, tabaré vázquez (broad front) victory in uruguay in 2004, fernando lugo (christian democratic party) victory in paraguay in 2008, ricardo martinelli (democratic change) victory in 2009 in panama, luis guillermo solís (citizens' action party) victory in 2014 in costa rica, mauricio macri (republican proposal) victory in 2015 in argentina, nayib bukele (grand alliance for national unity) victory in 2019 in el salvador, and gabriel boric (approve dignity) victory in 2021, all of them from non traditional third parties in their respective countries.[24] in some countries like argentina, chile and venezuela the political system is now split in two large multi party alliances or blocs, one on the left and one on the right of the spectrum,[23] such as frente de todos versus juntos por el cambio in argentina, and the unitary platform versus great patriotic pole in venezuela. during the imperial period, since 1840, two great parties with a national base alternated its dominance between legislatures: the liberal and the conservative. these parties were dissolved in 1889, after the republic was instituted in brazil, in which the registration of party directories came under the jurisdiction of the states. brazil also had a two party system for most of its military dictatorship (1964 1985): on october 27, 1965, the institutional act 2 decree[25] banned all existing parties and conditioned the creation of new parties to the quorum of 1/3 of the then elected national congress; resulting in the creation of two parties: a pro government party, the national renewal alliance (arena) and an opposition party, the brazilian democratic movement (mdb). despite officially having a bipartisan system, complex electoral mechanisms, nominally neutral, were created to guarantee the prevalence of the arena in the national congress, making brazil, in practice, a dominant party system in that period. the two parties were dissolved in 1979, when the regime allowed other parties to form.[26] the parliament of lebanon is mainly made up of two bipartisan alliances. although both alliances are made up of several political parties on both ends of the political spectrum the two way political situation has mainly arisen due to strong ideological differences in the electorate.[27] once again this can mainly be attributed to the winner takes all thesis. south korea has a multi party system[28] that has sometimes been described as having characteristics of a two party system.[29] parties will have reconstructions based upon its leader, but the country continues to maintain two major parties. currently these parties are the liberal democratic party of korea and the conservative people power party. two party systems can be contrasted with: there are several reasons why, in some systems, two major parties dominate the political landscape. there has been speculation that a two party system arose in the united states from early political battling between the federalists and anti federalists in the first few decades after the ratification of the constitution, according to several views.[1][31] in addition, there has been more speculation that the winner takes all electoral system as well as particular state and federal laws regarding voting procedures helped to cause a two party system.[1] political scientists such as maurice duverger[32] and william h. riker claim that there are strong correlations between voting rules and type of party system. jeffrey d. sachs agreed that there was a link between voting arrangements and the effective number of parties. sachs explained how the first past the post voting arrangement tended to promote a two party system: the main reason for america's majoritarian character is the electoral system for congress. members of congress are elected in single member districts according to the "first past the post" (fptp) principle, meaning that the candidate with the plurality of votes is the winner of the congressional seat. the losing party or parties win no representation at all. the first past the post election tends to produce a small number of major parties, perhaps just two, a principle known in political science as duverger's law. smaller parties are trampled in first past the post elections. consider a system in which voters can vote for any candidate from any one of many parties. suppose further that if a party gets 15% of votes, then that party will win 15% of the seats in the legislature. this is termed proportional representation or more accurately as party proportional representation. political scientists speculate that proportional representation leads logically to multi party systems, since it allows new parties to build a niche in the legislature: because even a minor party may still obtain at least a few seats in the legislature, smaller parties have a greater incentive to organize under such electoral systems than they do in the united states. in contrast, a voting system that allows only a single winner for each possible legislative seat is sometimes termed a single winner voting system and is usually described under the heading of a winner takes all arrangement in the case of a plurality voting system. each voter can cast a single vote for any candidate within any given legislative district, but the candidate with the most votes wins the seat, although variants, such as requiring a majority, are sometimes used. what happens is that in a general election, a party that consistently comes in third in every district is unlikely to win any legislative seats even if there is a significant proportion of the electorate favoring its positions. this arrangement strongly favors large and well organized political parties that are able to appeal to voters in many districts and hence win many seats, and discourages smaller or regional parties. politically oriented people consider their only realistic way to capture political power is to run under the auspices of the two dominant parties,[1] and legislators from both dominant parties have an incentive not to reform the system as it eliminates potential choices and multiple competing policy options, meaning that they do not necessarily need to adopt positions favorable to voters, but only need to be seen as marginally less unfavorable than the only other option to gain votes. in the u.s., forty eight states have a standard winner takes all electoral system for amassing presidential votes in the electoral college system.[34] the winner takes all principle applies in presidential elections, since if a presidential candidate gets the most votes in any particular state, all of the electoral votes from that state are awarded. in all but two states, maine and nebraska, the presidential candidate winning a plurality of votes wins all of the electoral votes, a practice called the unit rule.[1] duverger concluded that "plurality election single ballot procedures are likely to produce two party systems, whereas proportional representation and runoff designs encourage multipartyism."[32] he suggested there were two reasons why winner takes all systems leads to a two party system. first, the weaker parties are pressured to form an alliance, sometimes called a fusion, to try to become big enough to challenge a large dominant party and, in so doing, gain political clout in the legislature. second, voters learn, over time, not to vote for candidates outside of one of the two large parties since their votes for third party candidates are usually ineffectual.[1] as a result, weaker parties are eliminated by voters over time. duverger pointed to statistics and tactics to suggest that voters tended to gravitate towards one of the two main parties, a phenomenon which he called polarization, and tend to shun third parties.[5] for example, some analysts suggest that the electoral college system in the united states, by favoring a system of winner takes all in presidential elections, is a structural choice favoring only two major parties.[35] gary cox suggested that america's two party system was highly related with economic prosperity in the country: the bounty of the american economy, the fluidity of american society, the remarkable unity of the american people, and, most important, the success of the american experiment have all mitigated against the emergence of large dissenting groups that would seek satisfaction of their special needs through the formation of political parties. however, as of 2022, united states' gini coefficient (which measures income inequality) ranks near the worst of oecd countries and in the bottom half of all countries, while the country ranks outside the top five countries in terms of gdp per capita. an effort in 2012 by centrist groups to promote ballot access by third party candidates called americans elect spent $15 million to get ballot access but failed to elect any candidates.[36] the lack of choice in a two party model in politics has often been compared to the variety of choices in the marketplace. politics has lagged our social and business evolution ... there are 30 brands of pringles in our local grocery store. how is it that americans have so much selection for potato chips and only two brands   and not very good ones   for political parties? third parties, meaning a party other than one of the two dominant parties, are possible in two party systems, but they are often unlikely to exert much influence by gaining control of legislatures or by winning elections.[1] while there are occasional opinions in the media expressed about the possibility of third parties emerging in the united states, for example, political insiders such as the 1980 presidential candidate john anderson think the chances of one appearing in the early twenty first century is remote.[37] a report in the guardian suggested that american politics has been "stuck in a two way fight between republicans and democrats" since the civil war, and that third party runs had little meaningful success.[38] third parties in a two party system can be: when third parties are built around an ideology which is at odds with the majority mindset, many members belong to such a party not for the purpose of expecting electoral success but rather for personal or psychological reasons.[1] in the u.s., third parties include older ones such as the libertarian party and the green party and newer ones such as the pirate party.[1][40] many believe that third parties do not affect american politics by winning elections, but they can act as "spoilers" by taking votes from one of the two major parties.[1] they act like barometers of change in the political mood since they push the major parties to consider their demands.[1] an analysis in new york magazine by ryan lizza in 2006 suggested that third parties arose from time to time in the nineteenth century around single issue movements such as abolition, women's suffrage, and the direct election of senators, but were less prominent in the twentieth century.[41] a so called third party in the united kingdom were historically the liberal democrats, prior to the scottish national party taken its place since the 2015 election by number of the house of common seats. in the 2010 election, the liberal democrats received 23% of the votes but only 9% of the seats in the house of commons. while electoral results do not necessarily translate into legislative seats, the liberal democrats can exert influence if there is a situation such as a hung parliament. in this instance, neither of the two main parties (at present, the conservative party and the labour party) have sufficient authority to run the government. accordingly, the liberal democrats can in theory exert tremendous influence in such a situation since they can ally with one of the two main parties to form a coalition. this happened in the coalition government of 2010. the two party system in the united kingdom allows for other parties to exist, although the main two parties tend to dominate politics (for example, the aforementioned coalition government was the first multi party government since the government of winston churchill in the early  to mid 1940s); in this arrangement, other parties are not excluded and can win seats in parliament. in contrast, the two party system in the united states has been described as a duopoly or an enforced two party system, such that politics is almost entirely dominated by either the republicans or democrats, and third parties rarely win seats in congress,[42] state legislatures, or even at the local level. some historians have suggested that two party systems promote centrism and encourage political parties to find common positions which appeal to wide swaths of the electorate. it can lead to political stability,[3][failed verification] which leads, in turn, to economic growth. historian patrick allitt of the teaching company suggested that it is difficult to overestimate the long term economic benefits of political stability. sometimes two party systems have been seen as preferable to multi party systems because they are simpler to govern, with less fractiousness and greater harmony, since it discourages radical minor parties,[3] while multi party systems can sometimes lead to hung parliaments.[43] italy, with a multi party system, has had years of divisive politics since 2000, although analyst silvia aloisi suggested in 2008 that the nation may be moving closer to a two party arrangement,[44] although this no longer seemed the case by the 2010s, which saw the rise of the five star movement and lega. the two party system has generally been identified as simpler since there are fewer voting choices.[3] two party systems have been criticized for downplaying alternative views,[3][4] being less competitive,[7] failing the median voter theorem, encouraging voter apathy since there is a perception of fewer choices,[3] and putting a damper on debate[4] within a nation. in a proportional representation system, lesser parties can moderate policy since they are not usually eliminated from government.[3] one analyst suggested the two party approach may not promote inter party compromise but may encourage partisanship.[4] in the tyranny of the two party system, lisa jane disch criticizes two party systems for failing to provide enough options since only two choices are permitted on the ballot. she wrote: herein lies the central tension of the two party doctrine. it identifies popular sovereignty with choice, and then limits choice to one party or the other. if there is any truth to schattschneider's analogy between elections and markets, america's faith in the two party system begs the following question: why do voters accept as the ultimate in political freedom a binary option they would surely protest as consumers? ... this is the tyranny of the two party system, the construct that persuades united states citizens to accept two party contests as a condition of electoral democracy. there have been arguments that the winner take all mechanism discourages independent or third party candidates from running for office or promulgating their views.[7][46] ross perot's former campaign manager wrote that the problem with having only two parties is that the nation loses "the ability for things to bubble up from the body politic and give voice to things that aren't being voiced by the major parties."[37] one analyst suggested that parliamentary systems, which typically are multi party in nature, lead to a better "centralization of policy expertise" in government.[47] multi party governments permit wider and more diverse viewpoints in government, and encourage dominant parties to make deals with weaker parties to form winning coalitions.[48] analyst chris weigant of the huffington post wrote that "the parliamentary system is inherently much more open to minority parties getting much better representation than third parties do in the american system".[48] after an election in which the party changes, there can be a "polar shift in policy making" when voters react to changes.[3] political analyst a. g. roderick, writing in his book two tyrants, argued that the two american parties (the republican party and the democratic party) were highly unpopular (as of 2015), are not part of the political framework of state governments, and do not represent the 47% of the electorate who identify themselves as "independents".[49] he makes a case that the american president should be elected on a non partisan basis,[49][50][51] and asserts that both political parties are "cut from the same cloth of corruption and corporate influence."[52] others have accused two party systems of encouraging an environment which stifles individual thought processes and analysis. in a two party system, knowledge about political leaning facilitates assumptions to be made about an individual's opinions on a wide variety of topics (e.g. abortion, taxes, the space program, a viral pandemic, human sexuality, the environment, warfare, opinions on police, etc.) which are not necessarily connected. "the more destructive problem is the way this skews the discussion of the issues facing the nation. the media   meaning news sources from fox news to the new york times and everything in between   seem largely incapable of dealing with any issue outside of the liberal versus conservative paradigm. whether it's dealing with isis, the debt ceiling, or climate change, the media frames every issue as a simple debate between the democratic and the republican positions. this creates the ludicrous idea that every public policy problem has two, and only two, approaches. that's nonsense. certainly some problems have only two resolutions, some have only one, but most have a range of possible solutions. but the "national" debate presents every issue as a simplistic duality, which trivializes everything."  michael coblenz, 2016[53] the two party system, in the sense of the looser definition, where two parties dominate politics but in which third parties can elect members and gain some representation in the legislature, can be traced to the development of political parties in the united kingdom. there was a division in english politics at the time of the civil war and glorious revolution in the late 17th century.[54] the whigs supported protestant constitutional monarchy against absolute rule and the tories, originating in the royalist (or "cavalier") faction of the english civil war, were conservative royalist supporters of a strong monarchy as a counterbalance to the republican tendencies of parliament.[55] in the following century, the whig party's support base widened to include emerging industrial interests and wealthy merchants. the basic matters of principle that defined the struggle between the two factions, were concerning the nature of constitutional monarchy, the desirability of a catholic king, the extension of religious toleration to nonconformist protestants, and other issues that had been put on the liberal agenda through the political concepts propounded by john locke,[56] algernon sidney and others.[57] vigorous struggle between the two factions characterised the period from the glorious revolution to the 1715 hanoverian succession, over the legacy of the overthrow of the stuart dynasty and the nature of the new constitutional state. this proto two party system fell into relative abeyance after the accession to the throne of george i and the consequent period of whig supremacy under robert walpole, during which the tories were systematically purged from high positions in government. although the tories were dismissed from office for 50 years, they retained a measure of party cohesion under william wyndham and acted as a united, though unavailing, opposition to whig corruption and scandals. at times they cooperated with the "opposition whigs", whigs who were in opposition to the whig government. the ideological gap between the tories and the opposition whigs prevented them from coalescing as a single party. the old whig leadership dissolved in the 1760s into a decade of factional chaos with distinct "grenvillite", "bedfordite", "rockinghamite", and "chathamite" factions successively in power, and all referring to themselves as "whigs". out of this chaos, the first distinctive parties emerged. the first such party was the rockingham whigs[58] under the leadership of charles watson wentworth and the intellectual guidance of the political philosopher edmund burke. burke laid out a philosophy that described the basic framework of the political party as "a body of men united for promoting by their joint endeavours the national interest, upon some particular principle in which they are all agreed". as opposed to the instability of the earlier factions, which were often tied to a particular leader and could disintegrate if removed from power, the two party system was centred on a set of core principles held by both sides and that allowed the party out of power to remain as the loyal opposition to the governing party.[59] a genuine two party system began to emerge,[60] with the accession to power of william pitt the younger in 1783 leading the new tories, against a reconstituted "whig" party led by the radical politician charles james fox.[61][62][63] the two party system matured in the early 19th century era of political reform, when the franchise was widened and politics entered into the basic divide between conservatism and liberalism that has fundamentally endured up to the present. the modern conservative party was created out of the "pittite" tories by robert peel, who issued the tamworth manifesto in 1834 which set out the basic principles of conservatism   the necessity in specific cases of reform in order to survive, but an opposition to unnecessary change, that could lead to "a perpetual vortex of agitation". meanwhile, the whigs, along with free trade tory followers of robert peel, and independent radicals, formed the liberal party under lord palmerston in 1859, and transformed into a party of the growing urban middle class, under the long leadership of william ewart gladstone. the two party system had come of age at the time of gladstone and his conservative rival benjamin disraeli after the reform act 1867.[64] although the founding fathers of the united states did not originally intend for american politics to be partisan,[65] early political controversies in the 1790s saw the emergence of a two party political system, the federalist party and the democratic republican party, centred on the differing views on federal government powers of secretary of the treasury alexander hamilton and james madison.[66][67] a consensus on these issues ended party politics in 1816 for a decade, a period commonly known as the era of good feelings.[68] partisan politics revived in 1829 with the split of the democratic republican party into the jacksonian democrats led by andrew jackson, and the whig party, led by henry clay. the former evolved into the modern democratic party and the latter was replaced with the republican party as one of the two main parties in the 1850s.

we’re sorry, this site is currently experiencing technical difficulties. please try again in a few moments. exception: forbidden
numbers, facts and trends shaping your world read our research on: full topic list read our research on: | the two party system is well entrenched in american politics. it has been more than half a century since a candidate who was not from the republican or democratic party has won a single state in a presidential election. despite, or perhaps because of, the poor recent track record of alternative parties, a sizable minority of americans are supportive of the idea of having a greater choice of parties. nearly four in ten (39%) say the statement “i wish there were more political parties to choose from in this country” describes their views extremely (21%) or very well (17%). about a third (32%) say it describes their views somewhat well, while 28% say it describes their views not too well (16%) or not at all well (12%). as might be expected, support for a wider range of parties is greatest among those who do not have strong allegiances to the republican or democratic party. about half of independents and others not aligned with a party (48%) say wishing they had more parties to choose from describes their views extremely (29%) or very well (19%). similar shares of republican leaning independents (48%) and democratic leaning independents (53%) say this is something they would like to see in the u.s. among partisans, support for more choice in parties is higher among democrats than republicans. about four in ten democrats (38%) say wishing for more political parties to choose from describes their views extremely or very well, while 21% of republicans say the same (8% extremely and 13% very). almost half of republicans say they do not wish for more political parties in the country (46% say this describes their views not too or not at all well); about a quarter of democrats (26%) say this. the desire for more political parties to choose from in the u.s. also varies across age groups and by educational attainment. younger adults are more likely than older adults to say they wish there were more political parties to choose form in this country. about half of adults ages 18 to 49 (47%) say this sentiment describes their views extremely or very well, compared with 35% of those ages 50 to 64 and about a quarter of adults who are 65 and older (23%). americans who have a high school education or less are the least likely to say they would like to have more choices of political parties: just 34% say wanting more choices describes their views extremely or very well. about four in ten of those with some college education (40%) or with a college degree or more (43%) say they would like more parties to choose from. across partisan groups, younger american adults under age 40 are among the most likely to say they wish there were more political parties to choose from in the u.s., while americans 65 and older are the least likely to express this opinion. overall, about half of adults under age 40 (48%) say they wish there were more political parties to choose from, but that share falls to about three in ten among those under age 40 who identify as republicans (29%). about half or more of these younger adults who are democrats (49%), lean toward the democratic party (54%) or lean toward the gop (58%) say they wish there were more parties to choose from. adults ages 65 and older are generally less likely to express a desire for more parties. among this age group, more than twice as many democrats than republicans indicate support for more parties (23% vs. 10%).