As American politics have become increasingly polarized between two homogenous political blocs, the two-party system has been criticized as divisive and unrepresentative of the desires of the American people. One proposed solution is the presence of a major third party. Recent statistics report almost 40 percent of Americans believing a third party is needed to fix our system. Although the presence of a third party could potentially alleviate some of the hostility in the present system, the history of third parties in the United States suggests that the emergence of an eminent third party is simply not a realistic solution to the issues that our system faces today. Other solutions have been proposed like ranked-choice voting, larger congressional districts, and a multiparty system. However, implementing any of these alternatives would similarly be a steep uphill battle, going against the forces that maintain our system. For the healthy continuation of our democracy through one of these solutions, there must be an overall shift in thinking among the American people about our political structure.

The two-party system we see today finds its origins shortly before the Civil War with the Republican Party emerging as a political movement in the Northern states while the Democratic Party maintained strong support in the Southern states. Though some minor parties maintained small but consistent followings and enjoyed success at the lower levels of government—including the Greenback and the Populist parties during the late 19th century as well as the Socialist Labor Party in the early 20th century—the two major parties were immovable political players just as they are today. Despite the rare presidential elections of 1892 and 1924 when these alternative parties won some electoral votes, the two major parties emerged as the only true contenders for the presidency.

This changed with Theodore Roosevelt in the prelude to the 1912 Presidential Election as division within the Republican Party led to his formation of the rival Progressive Party, also known as the Bull Moose Party. Despite eclipsing the Republican Party in both the popular and the electoral vote, the Progressive Party’s split ultimately resulted in the Democratic Party’s victory with Woodrow Wilson. Recognizing that their division resulted in a spoiler effect, that is, the splitting of the vote between two candidates of similar platform or ideology, the Republican Party reconvened after this loss and compromised between its internal factions on a more agreeable candidate.

This episode of intraparty division, culminating in the failure of both sides, solidified the roles of the two major political parties as unchallengeable, while also discouraging deviation from their platforms in national politics. As this noteworthy example of the spoiler effect demonstrates, it is more beneficial to remain loyal to a major party, instead of advocating for a separate party and potentially splitting the electorate. Ironically, it is contrary to self-interest to advocate for a third party that more precisely represents one’s personal political interests, as this may ultimately result in the electoral victory of an opposing major party. Our democratic system now features little middle ground between the two political blocs, and will require a much broader transformation that the emergence of a third party cannot produce.

The 20th century saw two other third party campaigns that similarly won considerable portions of the vote, but ultimately could not compete against the two major parties. In response to the Democratic Party’s general abandonment of racist policies in the 1960s, hardline segregationist and southern Democrat George Wallace ran as the far-right American Independent Party’s candidate, winning five southern states and 13.5% of the popular vote. Much like the spoiler effect of Roosevelt’s Progressive Party, Wallace campaigned on a separate platform, in this case racial segregation, and split the Democratic voter base, attracting pro-segregationist southerners to his platform. Just as in 1912, the third party in the 1968 election served only to steal decisive votes from a major party, resulting in a victory for the other major party.

Ross Perot’s first campaign as an independent candidate garnered nearly 20 percent of the popular vote in the 1992 presidential election, and his second, on the ticket of his newly formed Reform Party, won almost 10 percent in 1996, albeit not winning any electoral votes in either election. Although he did not produce a spoiler effect, analysts found that Perot’s campaign hindered both major Clinton and Bush’s campaigns to similar degrees. The Reform Party failed to maintain continued support and ultimately fizzled out shortly before the 2000 election. These two more recent instances only reinforce the case against a future third party, with winning a handful of states, and splitting a major party’s voter base as its best prospect.

Though both parties have changed significantly throughout the past century, they have remained at the forefront of our democracy and are not likely to be altered by a new party. What, then, is the solution to the increasingly divisive and polarized politics that we have seen in recent years? Ranked-choice is one alternative, allowing voters to rank the candidates in order of preference. Coupled with the enlargement of congressional districts by combining existing ones, a ranked-choice voting system could elect the top few candidates as representatives. This ranked-choice system incentivizes candidates to target their opponents’ supporters, producing more moderate campaigning platforms appealing to both sides. At the state level, a ranked-choice voting system has already transformed politics in Maine, where it has made a mere plurality no longer the key to victory. After winning a plurality but not a majority in the 2018 election for Maine’s second congressional district, Republican incumbent Bruce Poliquin lost the election and his seat to Democrat Jared Golden once the second choices of independent voters were counted. Some have gone further in believing that this system should fracture the two major parties into five or six smaller parties, creating a multiparty democracy and necessitating cooperation and compromise between parties.

These alternative solutions, however, face the same insurmountable obstacles as a rising third party. The two-party system is deeply ingrained into our political history, and at the national level the two parties will be reluctant to accept changes that may be to their disadvantage. Although Maine has implemented a ranked-choice voting system in its congressional elections, state Republicans have challenged its usage in both congressional elections and the upcoming presidential election. It is to be expected that very few politicians have deviated from the status quo and supported these reforms, for fear of unpopularity within their party or a victory for their opponents. This is only reinforced by corporate interest in maintaining the present system and influencing directions taken by both major parties. For our political system to survive and adequately serve all the American people, a larger yet less structural change must occur.

For any of these solutions to happen, there must first be a shift in thinking among the American people about our politics, a broad recognition that our democratic system is not representing and meeting the needs of the people, and must be altered in some way. This sort of shift in thinking is not novel. Throughout history, dramatic events such as wars, economic depression, political crisis, or even pandemics have led to this recognition among the people that their political systems must change to better serve their needs. For twenty-first century Americans, this change can arise from understanding and disseminating the deep flaws and inefficiencies in our present party system and how they affect us, especially during the COVID-19 crisis. We must consider what the two-party system still offers and what it does not in regard to the alternatives. The unending factional tug-of-war of our binary system has paralyzed our government’s ability to dynamically and effectively address the crisis and aid those most vulnerable to the broader economic and social effects of the pandemic. Until this shift in thinking, our nation’s ability to effectively respond to domestic issues as well as those of increasingly dynamic world politics will continue to be stunted.