Jan
21
The Constitution Party: The Inevitable Argument For America’s Two-Party System
Filed Under Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
Aliza Alton is a senior Politics and International major with a concentration in American Politics
This post is the sixth and final one of this season of From the Field. If you have not yet done so, please read this brief post by the series editor introducing our focus for the season.
It stands to reason that the American political climate is highly polarized and the American people are dissatisfied with the status quo. This dissatisfaction with party polarization was foreshadowed as early as 1787 when James Madison wrote about the complaints heard everywhere regarding polarized and overbearing political groups. There are a plethora of ways that major parties might be reformed to cater to the sub-factions of their constituents. However, many political scholars suggest that more representation for minor parties will improve our government structure. Although minor parties, using the example of the Constitution Party, stand as a symbol of democracy and can even be used strategically during elections, the two-party system around which our nation has formed offers invaluable stability during times of mass polarization. To maintain this reliability the American people have grown so accustomed to, while also improving voter satisfaction, our political leaders may look to campaign solutions such as information-driven heuristics and increased representation for larger groups of constituents to reduce polarization and political dissatisfaction.
Minor parties stand as a symbol of our democratic process and the representation our founding fathers envisioned, remaining prevalent in our modern political sphere. The Constitution Party, for instance, was founded by Howard Phillips in 1992 after President Bush reneged on the ongoing “No New Taxes” pledge that he had promised to maintain. Their initial policy focus was on fiscal reform. However, they have expanded to address a plethora of issues, developing an extremely conservative perspective. They are particularly interested in restraining the Supreme Court, and its political statements, such as in Obergefell v. Hodges. The three pillars of their mission statement are Integrity, Liberty, and Prosperity, and this is intended to reflect the patriotic values that they uphold. Hyper-specific values offer greater representation, cater to a specific demographic, and give greater representation to those who feel that the Republican party does not give conservative issues the due diligence necessary to enact true policy reform. There is a sub-sector of citizens who deeply resonate with the motives and principles of the Constitution Party, just as there is for every minor party.
Although the Constitution Party gives representation to a portion of the American people, meeting a constituent’s exact preference does not always, nor should it always, translate into feasible election results. The Party has had minimal success, gaining traction with Howard Phillip’s presidential campaigns in the 90s, and obtaining ballot access to 22 states in 1992. They currently have access to 15 state ballots. One of their most notable achievements is the election of congressional candidate Rick Jore to the Montana House of Representatives in 2006. Although they are the third most popular American minor Party, following the Libertarian and Green parties, the hundreds or thousands of votes that they receive on their ballots are not comparable to the hundreds of millions the major parties receive at every election.
The current two-party political system has stood the test of time amid party realignment, government reform, and polarization, and has been the status quo for most of American history. When we consider the longstanding history of support that America has for our two-party system through the lack thereof for third parties, the opportunity for a minor party to reach success is bleak. Except for Maine and Nebraska, the plurality/winner-take-all system used by most states leads to dominant parties remaining in the Presidential office. Through a combination of many legislative factors, the logistical structure of American politics indirectly supports the two-party system.
Political scholars express concern that more representation for minor parties will oversaturate our political and government structure. “[A two-party system] serves the need of a democracy to hold public officials accountable to the electorate . . . and gives legitimacy to the efforts of those public officials as they seek reconciliation and unity on the issues that divide a vast and diverse nation”. They concluded that major parties should be incentivized through a referendum of support or dissatisfaction to adjust their policies and political methods to fit the public that they serve. This argument is not based on a lack of faith in the general public, but rather the reality of a decline in voter turnout, and the limited research the average voter is willing to do leading up to the election. Minor parties, generally speaking, are motivated by a specific policy concentration and focus solely on those issues. Collective action, or compromise, and majority leadership have served as the driving force for much of policy enactment, both of which minor parties lack by nature. Major parties, in contrast, have the funding, media exposure, and general experience to operate on the scale that citizens need, while compelling voters to settle in a way that honors the democratic process. As political scientists suggest, the responsibility should be placed on major parties to better represent their nation.
In regards to the future of minor parties and their place in American politics, many scholars see a promising future for their effects on congressional elections. Dr. Salka’s empirical research concludes that “In every state, the presence of a minor party candidate was associated with a statistically significant decline in the vote share for one or both of the major parties”. This study observes the Protest Hypothesis primarily, which claims that in the presence of a minor party, the major Party with the most similar values will lose a portion of votes to the said minor party. Put simply, minor parties can be used strategically.
An example of minor parties’ strategic use in elections is the candidacy of Ross Perot during the 1992 presidential election. He was the independent candidate running against Bill Clinton, and Republican incumbent, George Bush. Although he did not receive electoral votes, he garnered over 19% of the popular vote, aiding in Clinton’s ultimate victory. Perot’s fiscal prowess and bi-partisanship detracted Republican votes from Bush. Professor Salka’s research suggests that in at least 7 states there was a significant impact on the outcome of a congressional election based on the presence of minor parties on the ballot. This leads to the conclusion that minor parties serve a purpose in our democratic process that exceeds symbolism and transcends into strategy, allowing citizens to protest against policies and political patterns that they do not align with. While the data from both Ross Perot and the Constitution Party demonstrate a lack of probable electoral victory, the statistics suggest that minor parties have a hopeful strategic and symbolic place in American politics.
The argument that minor parties play a significant role in aiding dominant two-party systems remains prevalent. However, some research alludes to a larger issue. When citizens hold “wrong perceptions” about their politicians, it leaves them confused about the political process and the legislative impact that their politician truly makes. They feel the effects of misrepresentation but are not able to hold the responsible party accountable through elections. The lack of knowledge that voters have about just two political parties who go out of their way to create heuristics. The Constitution Party advocates for gun rights, religious freedom, and a conservative judiciary. These policy stances are far too similar to the Republican party’s to make a substantial difference in the average voter’s mind. If the catchy slogans and commercials for major parties are not reaching the average American, can we expect them to research a plethora of minor parties?
If I were to propose a solution to political polarization and lack of representation in the two-party system for which I advocate, I would suggest more precise and information-driven campaign strategies, focused on catering to larger groups of constituents. Creating an accurate, yet broadened representation of policy intentions while on the campaign trail would help voters make a decision that they can feel more satisfied with. It should be noted that the increase in candidate information and reform accuracy may not require a drastic influx in voter research or preparation. “The “low information rationality” theory states that voters do not need to possess “encyclopedic knowledge” to make reasonable decisions”. Although knowledge is invaluable to our understanding of any topic, Walder demonstrates that it is possible to adequately inform voters on political policies and their part in sculpting reform without overwhelming them with information. Walder claims that voters are more satisfied long-term with their decision when they use partisan heuristics. Partisan heuristics refer to mental shortcuts used to make ballot decisions using sufficient information given the limited time constraint of elections. An example of this would be social media algorithms and their tendency to perpetuate confirmation bias. A study found that “Voters with a low level of political knowledge hold wrong perceptions of parties’ vote recommendations in 24.5%, those with medium knowledge in 18.4%, and those with high knowledge only in 13.8% of the cases”. The confirmation that the average voter can make informed and satisfying decisions using partisan heuristics demonstrates that campaign reform in the two-party system would significantly impact our political landscape for the better.
While retention of minor parties is vital for democracy both symbolically and strategically, our nation could benefit from heightened party representation and an improvement in political understanding over the long term. When political parties are held subject to citizens who truly understand the issues at stake and the candidate for which they are voting, they are forced to cater to a larger, more diverse audience to obtain votes. As political scientists are finding, polarization is perpetuated, partially, due to citizen’s reliance on misinformation and lack of knowledge. Although minor parties, such as the Constitution Party, can stand as a reminder that democracy is pivotal to the success of our society, and add to the legitimacy of a major party’s election to office, the reasons listed above all lead toward a reliance on the two-party system that our founding fathers advocated for. A combination of campaign reform regarding increased heuristics, leading to a rise in civic education and voter satisfaction, and the reliance we currently have on the stability and strength that a two-party system offers may lead to optimistic change in our current political climate.