Many of us may have found ourselves questioning the validity of the party system during this past election cycle. Many of us feel the pressure to choose between two parties, neither of which may truly encapsulate our belief systems. Although we have the ability to form our own parties, many of us are uncomfortable with the idea of doing so or deviating from the typical choices. Instead, voters often choose the lesser of two evils. Is this truly representative of our population?
In Federalist 10, Madison mentions that “the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties; and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice, and the rights of the minor party; but by the superior force of an interested and over-bearing majority (1).” I would say that our current system can reflect all of these conflicts. It seems that the current system has divided the country in a way that makes it seem like there are only two options, and whichever “team” one sides with ends up keeping their loyalty. Representatives appear to care not for the better of the country or their districts, but are more concerned with giving their party the most power. This is why it is such a big deal for one party to have the majority; without the majority, it is almost impossible for the minority party to win anything because most representatives stick to their party’s side, whether they agree or not. This division in simply brings decision making to a halt.
Is there an issue with our political party system? Should we even have parties, or is it just the way they are handled in the United States? Should we have more parties?
The fact that our political scene has grown to become dominated by two major parties would not be a product unique to the American political system, as similar situations can be found in many other democratically governed countries around the world, regardless of their specific political systems. Regarding the prescriptive questions of whether we should have more parties, or maybe even not have any parties, it would really be down to the opinion of the individual on whether these divisions are, in fact, positive or negative influences for the country. Madison, for one, certainly believes that these factions advocate interests that are “adverse to the rights of other citizens or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community” (“Federalist 10” 1). But they exist anyway, as what causes them are “sown in the nature of man” (2), and any attempt to forcibly remove such causes by stripping away our liberty to politically organize would prove to be a foolish act. Instead of directly regulating the party structure inherent in American politics, maybe we would do well to simply regulate and control the more unpleasant effects resulting from such a political system. Although Madison’s proposals of instituting a system of political representatives and separating the government into various levels have not been very effective in controlling the influences of these parties, he would surely be content to see other efforts aiming to do so, such as limitations on their financial contributions, being looked into and even enacted.
ReplyDelete