This election has been crazy so far. You have Donald Trump, the Republican frontrunner, insisting we need to ban all Muslims from entering the US. Then the probable Democratic nominee, Hilary Clinton, is under investigation by the FBI for the use of a highly illegal private email server. It will likely come down to most voters picking what they believe to be the lesser of two evils, like it often does here in this great country. Democrats and Republicans have been in an ongoing battle for power for years and years.  Things are more complicated than either party makes them out to be, things aren't always black and white.  We need more options.  We need to find our way out of this two party stranglehold that we've been stuck in for generations. There is a way out of this mess.  We have to find a way to give independent candidates or even a third party candidate a chance at the presidency. 

The main reason we need to get rid of the two-party system in America is because of the gridlock we have found ourselves in. Michael Coblenz, a writer for The Hill, wrote "A recent Pew Research survey found that 36 percent of Republicans thought that liberal policies are "a threat to the nation's well-being." 27 percent of Democrats feel the same way about conservatives." Having people and politicians like this that can exist in our society is a real problem.  This gridlock is happening in congress but also in the administrative branch. Any time a member of one party is elected President one of their main goals is to undo most of the policies the former President, who was a member of the opposing party, put into place. This is a sure fire way to get as little done as possible. 

The fact that extremists rise to the top of the pack in both parties means more fighting and less compromise in Washington. If there were more moderate candidates then this grid lock we find ourselves in would loosen. The only problem is the two-party system doesn't give moderate candidates a chance. This example from an article called, A Polarized Nation: Disadvantages of the Two-Party System, shows how moderate candidates are ridiculed and tossed to the side. "For example, when John McCain was asked what he would do if his daughter wanted an abortion, he said that he would let her make a decision in regards to what she does with her body. His party criticized him relentlessly for this "moderate" comment." It's sad that our system doesn't allow moderate candidates like John McCain to gain real power in our government, thus allowing more efficiency. 

George Washington even warned us of political parties in his farewell address. He says "The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty."  Washington is essentially warning the American people that political parties could eventually turn us into the very thing he fought so hard to get away from. Thankfully this hasn't happened yet, but look at the current state of politics. With this current crazy election where anything can happen, Trump really has the power to destroy what's left of the Republican Party. Then the Democrats would be standing alone and unchecked just like Washington warned. This is yet another reason why we have to do something about the current two-party system.

There are also benefits we'd get from doing away with the two-party system that you wouldn't even expect. We currently have the highest incarceration rate of any country on the planet. Political Scientist, Salomon Orellana, has found that "countries with two-party systems incarcerate almost 200 more people (per 100,000 population) than countries with the most diverse party systems." This means that if we were to change up our party system we'd see a significant drop in our sky high incarceration rate. Orellana says the reason two-party systems tend to have higher incarceration rates is because of policy pandering. Orellana explains, "On issues related to "safety," politicians try to win votes by emphasizing toughness. And when both parties (in a two-party system) emphasize toughness it sends a message to the public that toughness is the only legitimate response to crime." On the flip side of this you have more diverse party systems fighting for rehabilitation and getting help for convicts which keeps their incarceration rates relatively low. This is yet another benefit of switching to a more diverse party system.  

At this point you may still be clinging to hope that the two-party system we have known for all of our lives isn't as bad as it seems to be. In this article called "Introduction to Does the U.S. Two-Party System Still Work?: At Issue," the author writes, "For example, in the 2002 collection Multiparty Politics in America: Prospects and Performance, John F. Bibby wrote an essay titled "In Defense of the Two-Party System." In this piece, Bibby argues that, "Because candidate recruitment and political advancement in the United States are primarily through the two major parties, the likelihood of demagogues and extremist candidates either winning major-party nominations or being elected is reduced."  This argument seems pretty sound, doesn't it? Oh, wait a minute. Let's take a look at Donald Trump for a second. Isn't he currently dominating in the delegate count and on his way to securing the GOP nomination? Oh, that's right, he is.  

Another point made by people who support the two-party system is that it provides balance. An article by Connect US entitled "9 Monumental Advantages and Disadvantages of Political Parties," says "Both political parties are organized groups with differing political views, which make it important for political parties to make decisions that will favor not only few but also all interests and opinions to keep the loyalty of their supporters." They listed this as an advantage, while it is clearly the main disadvantage. This only causes politicians to pander to whichever party they most closely identify with, instead of giving a clear representation of what they actually believe in. Also, this balance is what's causing the gridlock in congress that was mentioned earlier. So even these so called advantages of the two-party system lose their credibility upon closer inspection. 

Now that you know why we need to change the two-party system let's talk about how we could change it. There are many solutions to this problem. The first and most relevant way in the current election is to allow the libertarian and green party candidates on the main debate stage along with the Democratic and Republican nominees.  Back in September they started this process as Jennifer Harper of The Washington Times writes, "The Libertarian and Green parties - along with their respective presidential candidates Gary Johnson and Jill Stein - filed a lawsuit Tuesday in federal court, charging that the exclusion of "qualified candidates" from the general election presidential debates by the Commission on Presidential Debates violates federal anti-trust laws." In this current election where both Republican and Democratic outsiders are preforming so strong, what's not to say that a third party could come into play and win the presidency. Thus shaking up the political landscape in such a strong way that alternative parties would rise up and become as powerful as the Democrats and Republicans. Just like that, seemingly overnight, the problem would be gone. We would have gotten rid of the tyrannical two-party system in America. 

Let's say that this plan fails, and the lawsuit doesn't pass. What is another option? Well, back in the day, we had viable third parties that got elected to congress quite often.  Michael Coblenz, a writer for The Hill, writes, "Was there something different then that allowed these third parties to exist? Yes, multi-seat Congressional Districts. A multi-seat district could have two or more elected representatives. This system allowed a candidate to be elected with as little as 10 percent of the vote. This allowed candidates from minor parties to win office, which allowed these parties to gain political traction and eventually participate in a meaningful way on the national stage."  He goes on to suggest repealing the Uniform Congressional Districts Act which got rid of multi-seat Congressional Districts in the first place. This solution would be playing the long game as far as getting a third party candidate elected president but this would have an immediate impact on congress.  

Another way we can give other political parties a chance in getting one of their candidates elected president is instant runoff voting or (IRV).  This system, as explained by Thom Hartmann of The Big Picture explains in a video, allows voters to rank the candidates putting the candidate they want most to win at the top and least to win at the bottom.  IRV, used in Australia, and New Zealand, frees voters to choose third party candidates at the top of their list without fear of wasting their vote like many people think they would in our current system of voting if they voted for anyone besides a Democrat or a Republican. Adding this form of voting on top of one of the previous two ideas to strengthen third parties would certainly guarantee a real needed change in Washington.   

Of course there are other alternatives to the two-party system other than third parties. Eric X. Li, a venture capitalist in Shanghai, China goes through and explains how their one-party system from of government works for them in China in his TED talk. The whole speech revolves around the idea that there are alternatives to the way we do things that are just as legitimate. Their one-party system involves a pyramid that anyone has the chance to climb to the top of, and they don't hold actual elections, and this assures that those in power have the upmost competency. Li explains that his country's from of government isn't for everyone but that it does work for them. Is there a one-party system that would work for us as opposed to our two-party system? Yes, in fact, there is.

Let's imagine for a second having just one political party. What would it be?  Professor Charles Wheelan was interviewed by Brooke Berger of US News about his new book The Centrist Manifesto. In this article he explains "The Centrist Party stands for a series of principles that I would argue take the best of each party. The Centrist Party stands for keeping what we like about the Republicans and Democrats and cutting off the tails. The tails, unfortunately, are those who tend to be in charge of the system right now." Imagine just having this one political party and just selecting from candidates that picked what they personally believed to be right out of the policies made by the Democrats and Republicans. This is one alternative but what about getting someone elected who has no party affiliation at all?

Michael Bloomberg, former governor of New York may run as an Independent in the upcoming election. CNN says, "The source added that Bloomberg sees the Republican and Democratic presidential races as becoming increasingly polarized, and neither fits Bloomberg's views. But Bloomberg, who has flirted with Oval Office aspirations in the past, is serious about a possible candidacy, the source insisted." This is the best chance an Independent candidate has ever had at getting into the white house. He would be the ultimate outsider in an election where the outsiders have already risen to the top. Having an independent as president would prove to the American people that there is more to politics than the two-party system. 

Let's say Bloomberg decides not to run but we still want to get an independent candidate elected president eventually.  This solution, which is probably the easiest and most powerful solution to get rid of the two-party system once and for all, is explained by Bo Peabody, a writer for Huffington Post. He says, "The power of the two major political parties is derived from their memberships. If they have no members then they no longer exist. Everyone currently registered as a Democrat or a Republican  --  about 70% of the electorate  --  collectively controls the fate of the two-party system. You can dismantle it at anytime simply by becoming an independent voter." This solution puts it in the hands of the voter. It allows us to take charge against this horrible system that has divided this great nation right in two. If you find yourself not fully identifying as a Republican or a Democrat and you want to truly speak for yourself, go out and register as an independent voter today. 

 In conclusion, we have learned that the current two-party system has put the United States in a gridlock. We have learned that George Washington warned us about this system from the very beginning of our country. We have learned of the unforeseen benefit of decreasing our incarceration rate if we were to diversify our political system with more prominent parties. We have learned of plausible solutions to solving this big problem we face, such as allowing third parties on the main debate stage.  We could also repeal the Uniform Congressional Districts Act to allow third parties a better chance at being elected to congress. We could just go with a one-party system. And of course we could elect an independent candidate as president and all become independent voters to starve the two-party system out of existence. Now it is time to get to work, We need to find our way out of this two party stranglehold that we've been stuck in for generations using one of the many solutions just given to you. We have the power to change everything!

