Change Requires Choice
Since first registering to vote in 1972, I have been convinced that our country’s politics suffers from having only two choices on the ballot. It’s only gotten worse since then. The duopolistic nature of our national and state politics has now locked us into a dysfunctional doom loop that shows little sign of abating.
Over the last decade or so, I engaged in a number of activities seeking to challenge the powerful forces that are threatening to undermine the foundations of our democratic republic. I’ve participated in an established minor party, been a plaintiff in a federal lawsuit, and worked to start a new political party in Texas. There’s still much to be done.
By now, y’all have heard the arguments for limiting choice and continuing the sovereignty of the two major parties.
- More stable politics result from having only two parties.
- Anything that might give the other party (pick one) a leg up would be disastrous.
- Non-duopoly candidates must show some level of support before they can be allowed to be a choice on your ballot.
- Voters would be confused by having to choose between more than two candidates.
Increased voter choice would no doubt lead to messier politics. Messier because voters would have to consider more than two policy prescriptions. Messier because media would be forced to treat political differences more like serious debates and less like sporting events. Messier because candidates from all parties would be forced to legitimately compete in a political marketplace of diverse ideas.
Messier politics is precisely what’s needed, though. The voting public somehow manages to muddle through our many multiple-choice quizzes involving groceries, cars, colleges, and spouses. Choice is central to the lives of a free and prosperous people … and perhaps the only avenue we have left to lead us out of this political morass. We have only to consider what our political system looks like without true choice.
- Rigid political positions dictated by intensely polarized primary election voters.
- Demise of competitive electoral districts — far too many with no choice at all.
- Vanishing numbers of moderate candidates on the ballot.
- Increasing voter apathy and even antipathy.
The root causes of the current defective state of our politics are many, as are proposed fixes. But even as fixes are proposed and debated, powerful political forces oppose any change that would increase voter choice. Both major parties can be counted on to do their damnedest to keep others from playing in their game. Erecting statutory barriers to ballot access for independent and minor party candidates? No problem. Gerrymandering to allow incumbent office holders to choose their voters? No problem. Making sure that only major party candidates are included in debates? No problem. The list is long.
There is little hope that positive change can occur without more choice. All of us need to keep a lookout for the good, the bad, and the ugly of goings-on that serve to affect voter choice. I’m going to start with the Texas legislature that will be kicking off its 88th 140-day biennial session on January 10.
