Neglect vs Distance: Voters and the Two-Party System

The general public of the United States is constantly plagued by gloom and the feeling of inevitability. Upon encountering polarization or feeling unrepresented, voters rush to blame the parties and their domination of the US’s politics. The average high school graduate will tell you that the two-party system is flawed; they would be correct. The system’s flaws, however, don’t always stem from itself. Frequently, it is the voters who, with their neglect of civic participation and education, worsen the already limited representation that the two major parties offer.

When dismayed by polarization, we ought to acknowledge the responsibility that voters bear for it. The media may be selective in its coverage, and frequently for the worst. Elected officials may push extreme agendas and views to receive public attention. It is still the voters, however, that become polarized: specifically, it is those voters who do not bother with the burden of educating and involving themselves civically that fall for extremism.

The existence of two dominant political machines and labels creates a false sense that only two voices are viable and available in the United States: Republican, or Democrat. That, however, is not the case or, at least, is not accurate when bearing all the intricacies of the system in mind. Both parties offer wide arrays of candidates with their accompanying varieties of views, stances, and backgrounds. Candidates do not always receive equal publicity; hence, voters need to acquaint themselves with their options as well as make the appropriate decision on who best represents them through their own devices.

Taking the time to research candidates, attend town halls, and ask questions at endorsement meetings is undoubtedly a huge commitment. Nevertheless, it is the step that voters who are dissatisfied with their representation have to take if they want any improvement within the system. Those who do take that step are bound to find candidates that will better align with their values and interests. The masses, however, can always be blamed — real accountability acknowledges the faults of the system.

The system’s main fault isn’t a lack of “options” for voters — considering the options are out there — it is its distance from the constituents. Delegates are often responsible for deciding whom a party endorses; these delegates far from always act according to public consensus. Some got to witness it first-hand in the context of the Placer County Democratic Party’s endorsement convention. There, Congressman Bera won the most delegate votes despite challengers Heidi Hall and Chris Bennett seeming to be crowd favorites. A similar pattern could be observed in other districts; candidates with previous won elections regularly had the upper hand despite not resonating with the crowd as strongly as others.

Those are the manifest problems of two-party political machines: delegates fearing odds and win-loss records rather than prioritizing character, integrity, and ambition in candidates. Meanwhile, inaction only oils the gears of this flawed machine. Voters whom this issue concerns ought to consider their part in it: whether or not they go to the lengths of learning the candidates available and supporting them to the extent they desire their victory.

The power of the people is always greater than that of those in power (Ghonim 2013) — for as long as they realize it.