The Two Party System Sucks

If there is one trend in politics that’s up-only, it’s the share of people who identify as independents.

Why is this happening? Common theories include disillusionment with the ugliness of the two parties (it’s a lot harder to get behind Trump and Biden than it was JFK and Eisenhower) and the rise of independents in name only (people who say they are independent but always vote for a specific party anyway).

Both have some merit, but I’d like to submit a third theory: People are increasingly identifying as “independent” because the two parties don’t have enough nuance.

There is not a single contentious issue today that is entirely black and white. Everything exists in the gray:

• The debate over the economy isn’t over whether we should have pure capitalism or pure communism. It’s over best practices for regulation, social security, taxes, health care, inequality, government spending, and so on. Just because you believe in high taxes for millionaires doesn’t mean you support single-payer healthcare.

• The two sides of the abortion argument aren’t “abortions for everyone” and “no abortions ever”. Some people are pro-abortion for the 1st trimester only. Some are pro-abortion up to the point of viability. Some are pro-abortion in cases of incest and rape. Some are anti-abortion unless both parents agree.

• Immigration isn’t just open borders or closed borders. Some believe we should strictly allow high-skilled immigrants. Others are cool with immigration as long as it’s legal. Some think we should only take in immigrants from specific areas. Some want mass amnesty. Others want amnesty only for those who have kept themselves out of crime and have a job.

• The debate over guns isn’t just AK-47s or bust. Some people are fine with guns as long as there are strict background checks. Others only wish to see assault rifles banned. Some people don’t care as long as mags that hold more than 10 rounds are banned. Others want smart guns. Then there are those that say we need to ban concealed carry, while others advocate for the Feds to track every gun sale.

• Everyone wants less crime, but how do you best achieve it? Some advocate for more police. Some advocate for less (or no) police. Some want the cops to not have guns. Some want more police but a more forgiving justice system. Some want to lock everybody up. And don’t even get me started about RoboCops.

• Or take affirmative action. Some want race involved in admissions. Others don’t. Some are cool with giving minorities a boost. But what minorities? Some are cool with it only if it doesn’t hurt someone else. But what if it’s just hurting white people? Some are cool with it only if it’s a poor person. But what if that poor person is white? Others are cool with it if the applicant can effectively describe how race affected their lives. But that opens a whole other can of worms.

• Or take privacy. Everyone wants at least some privacy, but what about the need for the cops to catch criminals? What about if encryption was allowed but there was a camera on every street corner? Is it ok for the cops to use your genetic data? What about national security? If surveillance of targeted populations could prevent another 9/11, is it worth it?

Things get even more complicated when you consider that not only are the issues very gray, but the solutions are as well:

I can do this for pages and pages, but this is Stove Top, not Not Boring. You get the point: every issue and potential solution is nuanced. By extension, this means that every person outside of the most extremist is nuanced as well.

In what party would you put someone that wants single-payer healthcare, oppose abortion and guns, supports the police and affirmative action, and doesn’t hate the idea of surveillance? Personally, I’m not entirely sure. I guess a Democrat?

Now let’s go one level deeper. What about somebody who wants tax raises on millionaires, hates Obamacare, is pro-abortion but only for the 1st trimester, wants mass amnesty, likes smart guns but only pistols with limited mag sizes, wants a higher police presence but a restorative justice system, favors colorblind college admissions, and is cool with surveillance of targeted “high-risk” populations. What party would you put this person in?

Your guess is as good as mine because I have literally no idea. But I do know that many such unidentifiable people exist. Besides the fact that 49% of the country now identifies as an “independent”, consider that 27% of people have an unfavorable view of both parties:

43%(!) of people and 54%(!!) of 18-29 year olds feel like there are no major candidates who represent their views well:

And this is especially true for people who merely “lean” left or right:

If that’s not enough proof, then consider that Trump’s winning 2016 campaign was the most ideologically confusing campaign of all time, and RFK Jr, a man who is simultaneously anti-vaccine, pro-crypto, and pro-affirmative action, is polling between 8% and 17%.

People crave something different, and why wouldn’t they? As Gurwinder elegantly put it, the two-party system was invented when the country had 5 million people, almost all of whom were either white farmers (or something else blue-collar) or black slaves just trying to make it through the day.

Is this the ideal system for a diverse country of 330 million people with vastly different professions, who live in vastly different locations, and who have vastly different incomes? I don’t think it is.

Naturally, it will be difficult to overthrow the two-party system. The system is deeply entrenched in our society, satisfies our desires an in-group and out-group, and the elites aren’t in a rush to give up the power the two-party system grants them.

But none of this changes the fact that the world is only growing more complex and nuanced. The system will eventually be forced to evolve, just like every system that has come before it.