The dominance of the two major parties in the United States has become so entrenched that many states now function effectively as one-party systems. Whether red or blue, a single party controls these states to an overwhelming degree, and voters often feel alienated from the political process. In these environments, elections sometimes feel like mere formalities, with outcomes that seem predetermined, and political machines within these parties work tirelessly to maintain their dominance at the expense of the broader electorate. This lack of competition isn’t just problematic; it undermines the foundation of democracy, where the people's voice should always be the driving force.
The issue of one-party dominance is not just a political quirk but a significant problem that breeds disengagement among voters. In states like California, where the Democratic Party holds near-total control, or Alabama, where Republicans dominate every level of government, many citizens feel as though their votes won’t change the outcome. This sense of powerlessness can be frustrating, as the choices on the ballot are often limited to candidates representing only one side of the political spectrum, leaving those whose views don’t align with the dominant party feeling sidelined. Furthermore without a legitmate challanger most one parties within a one party state develop a state of complacancy where they do not feel the need for change regardless of what the voters are feeling. As a result, the electoral process becomes less about representing the electorate's diversity and more about perpetuating the power of entrenched political elites.
Unfortunately, the current primary system is not enough to break the grip of the political machines. The stranglehold establishment candidates have over the process, backed by powerful party machinery, makes genuine competition nearly impossible. In most down-ballot races, there’s only one name on the ballot: a candidate handpicked by party insiders, groomed for office, and quietly funneled up the political ladder over time. This creates the illusion of voter choice while decisions are made behind closed doors. Endorsements, which carry immense weight in primaries, are rarely based on merit or public support; instead, they reflect the interests of those already entrenched in power. These endorsements bring money, media attention, and institutional legitimacy, effectively crowning winners before casting a vote. Even in so-called competitive races, a well-connected candidate with the proper endorsements can steamroll challengers, regardless of what the electorate wants. Primaries, especially in one-party states, don’t reflect democratic participation—they’re a controlled environment where political machines protect their own and lockout dissenting or independent voices.
The problem with this system is that it limits the ability of voters to choose candidates who represent their values. In a state dominated by a single party, voters have little real influence over the selection of candidates, as the political machines within each party control the process. Political insiders, rather than the voters themselves, determine which candidates appear on the ballot. This lack of competition means that the candidates who make it to the general election do not reflect the full diversity of the electorate. Instead, they are the candidates who have successfully navigated the narrow channels of party power, leaving many voters feeling like their voices don’t matter.
Given these challenges, it’s clear that we need a viable alternative that can break the stranglehold of the two-party system and provide voters with real choices. The solution lies in introducing a third party that can challenge the dominance of the existing parties and offer a genuine alternative to voters. This introduction of a third party alone is not enough. To succeed and thrive in a system that currently favors the two major parties, we must also implement reforms that make it easier for voters to support third-party candidates without fear of wasting their votes. This change could bring a new sense of hope and possibility to the electoral process.
This is where ranked choice voting (RCV) comes in. RCV is a voting system that allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference rather than voting for just one. This means voters can express their support for third-party candidates without fearing their vote will be “wasted.” Under RCV, if no candidate wins a majority, the lowest-ranked candidates are eliminated, and their votes are redistributed according to voters' preferences. This process continues until a candidate achieves a majority. The beauty of RCV lies in its ability to empower voters to express their valid preferences without the anxiety of choosing a candidate who may not be able to win in a traditional first-past-the-post system. This system instills confidence in voters, knowing their voice is heard and their vote makes a difference.
By adopting ranked choice voting, we would make it possible for third-party candidates to compete on a more level playing field, giving voters real alternatives to the two-party system. With RCV, voters can support a third-party candidate as their first choice, knowing that if that candidate doesn’t win, their vote will be transferred to their second choice, ensuring that their vote still counts. This eliminates the so-called “spoiler effect,” where a third-party candidate could split the vote and inadvertently help elect a candidate they oppose. In other words, RCV ensures that voters can support their preferred candidate without worrying that their vote might indirectly benefit a candidate they strongly oppose.
Ranked choice voting would level the playing field for third-party candidates and force the major parties to respond more to voters. With more competition, candidates must appeal to a broader base of voters, not just their party’s most committed supporters. This would lead to more inclusive elections, where candidates are encouraged to address various issues and concerns. It would make elections more dynamic, competitive, and reflective of the diverse views within the electorate. Instead of tailoring their message to only the most extreme factions of their party, candidates would have to engage with the broader public, appealing to moderates, independents, and even voters who might not typically support their party.
In conclusion, in states where one-party control has become the norm, ranked-choice voting would help break the entrenched political power cycle. It would create a more competitive environment, forcing politicians to work harder to earn the electorate's support. It would also give voters a greater sense of agency, knowing that their vote matters and they have a meaningful choice at the ballot box. With ranked-choice voting, voters could support third-party candidates without fear of wasting their votes, increasing competition and revitalizing the democratic process. This system would level the playing field for third-party candidates, force the major parties to respond more to voters and lead to more inclusive elections that better reflect the diverse views within the electorate.
Add comment
Comments