Perhaps Americans do not require Political Party reform, as much as a return to a preCovid area. We are not a Republic by accident. The founders wanted DC to be remote, contemplative and to move at a glacial pace. When DC is working as planned, few give it much thought, if we are not at war.
An unprecedented loss of liberty and control, much of it found to be unnecessary in hindsight, was a shock for all Americans. 3 weeks morphed into years. The Covid mistakes, distortions and outright falsehoods, were followed by historic inflation and a never before seen disregard for immigration law. All topped off by a President that basks in the unprecedented vitriol tossed at him, daily.
Long ago, a friend unexpectedly lost her her husband and her mother in separate incidents, and had a cancer diagnosis, all in the same 90 days. She said she survived, when her therapist pointed out what had happened to her wasn't just unusual, it was unimaginable for most, so she would need to add tools to her tool box, to find her way out of the darkness.
2019 was a little over 6 years ago, but it feels like decades ago. It is probably also not a coincidence that the 2019 US federal budget was a little under $4.5 trillion dollars, while current spending stands at $7 trillion dollars a year, with the same President and similar tax rates.
The role of the federal government in US life has exploded, and not to the benefit of Americans.
We surely need less partisanship, but less government, shrunk back to its' historical norm and limited power, probably would not hurt either.
The worst abuses during COVID were perpetrated by state and local government. School closures, church blockades, masks, arresting lone surfers are examples.
Great comment! Much like your friend, I too have been through the unimaginable to most, both earlier within my life but also just within the pandemic period, having lost most of my close older family in well less then a year's time span, plus my home and job (I am doing better now, but still not recovered). That so many experianced something similer in such a short period of time yet we largely go on acting as if this never happened, has surely contributed to where we are now, though I would say it definately began earlier. But there is no telling where we might be now if things hadn't happned the way they did over the last 6 years. Though I would say, these events wearn't just out of the blue, but instead are (in part) what happened (and how some were able to take advantage in new ways) do to finally reaching a series of tipping points that was reached do to decade after decade of unsustainable pre-existing trends and poorly addressed problems in society, many of which began in part as poorly thought out responces and reform attemps to earlier differant societal problems!
Love this article. i’ve thought a lot about this and why it is so difficult to break out of 2 party politics.
Having independents with real power is a heavy lift while both parties are on solid footing (even as they are loathed). With one party in tatters it becomes possible ( GOP post-Obama or Ds now). The problem is money and infrastructure. Either party in shambles after a devastating loss is still an enormous framework for something new.
It’s always more likely that a different kind of party will rise from the ashes of a party in disarray, rather than splinter groups settling for new, smaller spheres of influence.
Trump’s GOP is not recognizable by old reaganites. But his movement scraped away the old and layered on the new MAGA values and benefited from what was already there without being bound by it.
This is why someone like Musk could make a difference, as Ross Perot almost did in 92. He could stake 10 billion starting funds and begin by winning state houses and contested house seats. Even if his party’s platform was unfavorable, HAVING a viable third party might be worth more than what that third party actually is - as long as it was a credible option.
Not Musk. We need candidates with appeal. The only way a third-party candidate can win is if he/she is normal and not easily identified as a D or an R in disguise. Also, Musk was born in S. Africa.
You mistake me. I don’t mean musk running for office. I mean someone with deep pockets able to build true state-by-state party infrastructure. In fact one of the problems with third parties is they seem to think party-building starts with high federal office. The reason the GOP has been so successful as a minority party (minority up until recently) is that it has robust state infrastructure throughout the south and middle of the country.
In my view, The first well-financed outfit that figures out that getting school boards, statehouses and state legislatures is the starting block will succeed in building an actual party with real influence.
And again it may not matter if it is a left or a right party - as long as it catalyzes completion and makes competition about success in governance rather than whatever it is now. 😊
Progressives taking over the Democratic Party, especially during the Biden administration, made me independent of the party after many years of loyalty. I remain registered so I can vote against them in primaries, but will vote GOP for the senate and we’ll see about the presidential elections.
No need to go back to 1912. 1992 or 2000 will do. Partisans still blame independents for their losses and have taken concrete steps to prevent a repeat. Republicans are especially blind as they refuse to recognize that absent the broken promises, Perot doesn't run. You can read my lips. Clinton was closer to the mark about 2000. Had Gore not lost his and Clinton's home states, Florida wouldn't have mattered. What flipped TN and AR in Clinton's telling was gun control. Seems like a case of strategic voting in those states. The third party option is an electoral loser for however makes the move with the major exception being Populism. It can be argued that this had long term success in the late 19th century as Democrats adopted many of their policies. In the end, Wilson betrayed them with his government of experts and here we are. Standing up a 3rd AND 4th party at the same time would be interesting. It could lead to European style coalition bargaining. Last I checked, Europeans weren't any happier about their politics than Americans. Closest we came here was 1824. We wuz robbed. Politics is downstream of culture and the culture, and perhaps the reality has diverged. Not sure politics can fix this even if it is less toxic.
If John Fetterman had more robust physical health, he would be a strong candidate for President in 2028. He is liberal on economic issues, fairly moderate on social issues, and moderate on defense and foreign policy. He is overall sensible on immigration matters. If the Democrats nominated a candidate very similar to him in 2028, they would beat JD Vance easily, very likely a landslide. But the Democratic primary voters want a hard Left candidate, so Vance has a strong chance of being the next President unless the economy goes haywire.
I just saw recent polling for PA that showed Fetterman wildly popular with Republicans and just barely so with Democrats. He can win any election he runs in, but the left side of the Democratic Party hates him. Pro Israel maybe.
In my state (Nebraska) Dan Osborn is running as a so-called Independent for Senate. Democrats are not running a candidate and the state party has endorsed him. He agrees with the Dem platform, he fundraises through Act Blue, and 90% of his contributions coming from out of state. No one is fooled.
The largest reform needed is ballot access reform, making it much easier to put candidates on the ballot. Why? I live in Massachusetts, where something like 3/4 of all state legislators run unopposed in the general election. It's too challenging for people to get on the ballot.
Voter confusion? Not so many years ago, there was a California special election for Governor, with 100 candidates on the ballot. Three candidates got almost all the votes, because voters are not that confused.
Finally, the purpose of the 'top two' open primary system is to completely destroy independents and third party candidates, and in many cases to give voters a choice between two candidates from the same party. It should be banned.
I’m a big fan of jungle/top 2 primaries. They give independent minded voters the ability to select across the broadest possible range of candidates. Independent and third party candidates are hindered by a lack of organization and effective campaign strategy. With a top 2 rather than a partisan primary they simply go down in flames earlier rather than later. As a magenta guy living in a blue state being able to choose between two Democrats in the general has slightly more appeal than knowing whoever wins the Democratic primary is going to win in the general.
If you're not going to use polling and rely solely on your partisan registration method, you have no basis to make that claim. Approximately 19 states do not collect or report party affiliation data for voter registration, including, most crucially, 4 of the 7 most competitive states--Virginia, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and North Carolina--where the results are most consequential and pronounced.
Of the remaining competitive states that do track affiliation in voter registration--Nevada, New Mexico and Pennsylvania--the results are highly variable, but two out of three (Nevada and New Mexico) show that independents outgained R's (and D's) in the most recent reports vs 2024. (PA shows the same if you classify libertarians as a species of independent)
I already pointed this out for NM's data, but here's Nevada:
Well, all you can do for now is measure partisan returns vs. earlier history. For example, you can model the NJ race based solely on previous history, because a certain # are allocated to both D and R from history.
I can see clearly the root of this political rot. It is almost all from the Democrats beginning with the Clintons, but really got rolling with Obama. Then Trump picked up their playbook.
Remember how the Democrats went full negative branding and character assassination with Romney and McCain? Let's assume that product companies took the same advertising approach in the media... Coke comes out and claims Pepsi is made with child labor, including earth destroying toxic additives and the CEO is a fascist, racist Nazi. None of it is true, but it does not matter. Coke buys up hundreds of millions of ads with USAID and Soros money and peppers the people with them until the people repeat it all and spread it free on social media. Being gaslit like this, many would not suspect it. They would just adopt what has been repeatedly pumped into their heads. But the general public opinion would be disgust that they are stuck in this negative loop... instead of Coke and Pepsi both just doing positive ads about their own products.
The Democrats no longer promote their ideas, they rely on demonizing and dehumanizing their opponents. This is not only disgusting and the public is tired of it, but it is also dangerous as the assassination of Charlie Kirk proves.
Trust in government has cratered since it 1958, and at the same time government has gotten bigger. There may be a cause and effect relationship there. My guess is that because governing standards are what satisfies 51% of the citizens, the other 49% are on their own. As more activities of living are governed by the 51%, there is more and more friction.
I think a two party system is inevitable if we continue the current "first passed the post" electoral system. A third party (e.g. Libertarian or Green) harms the party that is most aligned with it. Would Clinton have won without Ross Perot? Germany has a lot of problems but one might want to study the German two vote system for members of the Bundestag. Parties with over 5% of the second vote get some representation in the Bundestag even if they don't win any of the districts.
The old adage that bad politicians are elected by good people who don’t vote has never been more true. However it needs the addition: Especially in primaries.
I’m not sure our two party system is so much the problem. It’s not like Europe’s parliamentary democracies are currently providing a shining example. The fundamental difference is that our coalition building happens as part of the vote rather than after it.
Our biggest issue is that we went from smoke filled rooms where party leaders picked candidates that would drive the party’s agenda to a small “d” democratic process without considering who tends to vote in primaries. A classic example is that 30+ years ago safe seats were used to groom future party leaders, which requires a broader appeal and figuratively sober leadership. Now they are the source of each party’s clown caucus.
If there’s a message here it’s that if you can’t be bothered to make a choice required to vote in the primary then you really shouldn’t complain about the results when the general rolls around.
My main problem with the vote independent issue is what you described in 1912- we got Woodrow Wilson because of that. We have strong executive powers - we are not set up for European legislative models. In GA we could have klan governor if we had multiple candidates run. I don’t want that
I think that the best chance of getting centrists elected is through more widespread use of ranked choice voting. A relative handful of centrists not committed to party line voting could have substantial value in breaking stalemates like the present government shutdown in legislative bodies.
If twenty or thirty percent of senators and congresscritters voted on legislation with the other party it would break the stranglehold on legislation. Nothing gets done. Not sure where the money goes but we get no services for our money except debt.
Perhaps Americans do not require Political Party reform, as much as a return to a preCovid area. We are not a Republic by accident. The founders wanted DC to be remote, contemplative and to move at a glacial pace. When DC is working as planned, few give it much thought, if we are not at war.
An unprecedented loss of liberty and control, much of it found to be unnecessary in hindsight, was a shock for all Americans. 3 weeks morphed into years. The Covid mistakes, distortions and outright falsehoods, were followed by historic inflation and a never before seen disregard for immigration law. All topped off by a President that basks in the unprecedented vitriol tossed at him, daily.
Long ago, a friend unexpectedly lost her her husband and her mother in separate incidents, and had a cancer diagnosis, all in the same 90 days. She said she survived, when her therapist pointed out what had happened to her wasn't just unusual, it was unimaginable for most, so she would need to add tools to her tool box, to find her way out of the darkness.
2019 was a little over 6 years ago, but it feels like decades ago. It is probably also not a coincidence that the 2019 US federal budget was a little under $4.5 trillion dollars, while current spending stands at $7 trillion dollars a year, with the same President and similar tax rates.
The role of the federal government in US life has exploded, and not to the benefit of Americans.
We surely need less partisanship, but less government, shrunk back to its' historical norm and limited power, probably would not hurt either.
The worst abuses during COVID were perpetrated by state and local government. School closures, church blockades, masks, arresting lone surfers are examples.
True, but they were based on D.C. lies. Covid became political too quickly.
Everything is political. It is the meaning of the word 'totalization'. The only thing to argue about is when this happened, not whether it did.
Great comment! Much like your friend, I too have been through the unimaginable to most, both earlier within my life but also just within the pandemic period, having lost most of my close older family in well less then a year's time span, plus my home and job (I am doing better now, but still not recovered). That so many experianced something similer in such a short period of time yet we largely go on acting as if this never happened, has surely contributed to where we are now, though I would say it definately began earlier. But there is no telling where we might be now if things hadn't happned the way they did over the last 6 years. Though I would say, these events wearn't just out of the blue, but instead are (in part) what happened (and how some were able to take advantage in new ways) do to finally reaching a series of tipping points that was reached do to decade after decade of unsustainable pre-existing trends and poorly addressed problems in society, many of which began in part as poorly thought out responces and reform attemps to earlier differant societal problems!
Love this article. i’ve thought a lot about this and why it is so difficult to break out of 2 party politics.
Having independents with real power is a heavy lift while both parties are on solid footing (even as they are loathed). With one party in tatters it becomes possible ( GOP post-Obama or Ds now). The problem is money and infrastructure. Either party in shambles after a devastating loss is still an enormous framework for something new.
It’s always more likely that a different kind of party will rise from the ashes of a party in disarray, rather than splinter groups settling for new, smaller spheres of influence.
Trump’s GOP is not recognizable by old reaganites. But his movement scraped away the old and layered on the new MAGA values and benefited from what was already there without being bound by it.
This is why someone like Musk could make a difference, as Ross Perot almost did in 92. He could stake 10 billion starting funds and begin by winning state houses and contested house seats. Even if his party’s platform was unfavorable, HAVING a viable third party might be worth more than what that third party actually is - as long as it was a credible option.
Not Musk. We need candidates with appeal. The only way a third-party candidate can win is if he/she is normal and not easily identified as a D or an R in disguise. Also, Musk was born in S. Africa.
You mistake me. I don’t mean musk running for office. I mean someone with deep pockets able to build true state-by-state party infrastructure. In fact one of the problems with third parties is they seem to think party-building starts with high federal office. The reason the GOP has been so successful as a minority party (minority up until recently) is that it has robust state infrastructure throughout the south and middle of the country.
In my view, The first well-financed outfit that figures out that getting school boards, statehouses and state legislatures is the starting block will succeed in building an actual party with real influence.
And again it may not matter if it is a left or a right party - as long as it catalyzes completion and makes competition about success in governance rather than whatever it is now. 😊
Progressives taking over the Democratic Party, especially during the Biden administration, made me independent of the party after many years of loyalty. I remain registered so I can vote against them in primaries, but will vote GOP for the senate and we’ll see about the presidential elections.
No need to go back to 1912. 1992 or 2000 will do. Partisans still blame independents for their losses and have taken concrete steps to prevent a repeat. Republicans are especially blind as they refuse to recognize that absent the broken promises, Perot doesn't run. You can read my lips. Clinton was closer to the mark about 2000. Had Gore not lost his and Clinton's home states, Florida wouldn't have mattered. What flipped TN and AR in Clinton's telling was gun control. Seems like a case of strategic voting in those states. The third party option is an electoral loser for however makes the move with the major exception being Populism. It can be argued that this had long term success in the late 19th century as Democrats adopted many of their policies. In the end, Wilson betrayed them with his government of experts and here we are. Standing up a 3rd AND 4th party at the same time would be interesting. It could lead to European style coalition bargaining. Last I checked, Europeans weren't any happier about their politics than Americans. Closest we came here was 1824. We wuz robbed. Politics is downstream of culture and the culture, and perhaps the reality has diverged. Not sure politics can fix this even if it is less toxic.
If John Fetterman had more robust physical health, he would be a strong candidate for President in 2028. He is liberal on economic issues, fairly moderate on social issues, and moderate on defense and foreign policy. He is overall sensible on immigration matters. If the Democrats nominated a candidate very similar to him in 2028, they would beat JD Vance easily, very likely a landslide. But the Democratic primary voters want a hard Left candidate, so Vance has a strong chance of being the next President unless the economy goes haywire.
I just saw recent polling for PA that showed Fetterman wildly popular with Republicans and just barely so with Democrats. He can win any election he runs in, but the left side of the Democratic Party hates him. Pro Israel maybe.
In my state (Nebraska) Dan Osborn is running as a so-called Independent for Senate. Democrats are not running a candidate and the state party has endorsed him. He agrees with the Dem platform, he fundraises through Act Blue, and 90% of his contributions coming from out of state. No one is fooled.
I'd be happier if he was a little more to the right on some issues, it would be good though to see a dem voting on legislation with the Rs.
The largest reform needed is ballot access reform, making it much easier to put candidates on the ballot. Why? I live in Massachusetts, where something like 3/4 of all state legislators run unopposed in the general election. It's too challenging for people to get on the ballot.
Voter confusion? Not so many years ago, there was a California special election for Governor, with 100 candidates on the ballot. Three candidates got almost all the votes, because voters are not that confused.
Finally, the purpose of the 'top two' open primary system is to completely destroy independents and third party candidates, and in many cases to give voters a choice between two candidates from the same party. It should be banned.
I’m a big fan of jungle/top 2 primaries. They give independent minded voters the ability to select across the broadest possible range of candidates. Independent and third party candidates are hindered by a lack of organization and effective campaign strategy. With a top 2 rather than a partisan primary they simply go down in flames earlier rather than later. As a magenta guy living in a blue state being able to choose between two Democrats in the general has slightly more appeal than knowing whoever wins the Democratic primary is going to win in the general.
True that indies are growing, but not as fast as Rs.
If you're not going to use polling and rely solely on your partisan registration method, you have no basis to make that claim. Approximately 19 states do not collect or report party affiliation data for voter registration, including, most crucially, 4 of the 7 most competitive states--Virginia, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and North Carolina--where the results are most consequential and pronounced.
Of the remaining competitive states that do track affiliation in voter registration--Nevada, New Mexico and Pennsylvania--the results are highly variable, but two out of three (Nevada and New Mexico) show that independents outgained R's (and D's) in the most recent reports vs 2024. (PA shows the same if you classify libertarians as a species of independent)
I already pointed this out for NM's data, but here's Nevada:
As of September 2025: https://www.nvsos.gov/sos/home/showpublisheddocument/16942/638926651955770000
As of September 2024:
https://www.nvsos.gov/sos/home/showpublisheddocument/14468/638616688551830000
We need to measure those with no affiliation, too.
Well, all you can do for now is measure partisan returns vs. earlier history. For example, you can model the NJ race based solely on previous history, because a certain # are allocated to both D and R from history.
I can see clearly the root of this political rot. It is almost all from the Democrats beginning with the Clintons, but really got rolling with Obama. Then Trump picked up their playbook.
Remember how the Democrats went full negative branding and character assassination with Romney and McCain? Let's assume that product companies took the same advertising approach in the media... Coke comes out and claims Pepsi is made with child labor, including earth destroying toxic additives and the CEO is a fascist, racist Nazi. None of it is true, but it does not matter. Coke buys up hundreds of millions of ads with USAID and Soros money and peppers the people with them until the people repeat it all and spread it free on social media. Being gaslit like this, many would not suspect it. They would just adopt what has been repeatedly pumped into their heads. But the general public opinion would be disgust that they are stuck in this negative loop... instead of Coke and Pepsi both just doing positive ads about their own products.
The Democrats no longer promote their ideas, they rely on demonizing and dehumanizing their opponents. This is not only disgusting and the public is tired of it, but it is also dangerous as the assassination of Charlie Kirk proves.
Trust in government has cratered since it 1958, and at the same time government has gotten bigger. There may be a cause and effect relationship there. My guess is that because governing standards are what satisfies 51% of the citizens, the other 49% are on their own. As more activities of living are governed by the 51%, there is more and more friction.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/06/24/public-trust-in-government-1958-2024/
https://fee.org/articles/the-growth-of-government-in-america/
I think a two party system is inevitable if we continue the current "first passed the post" electoral system. A third party (e.g. Libertarian or Green) harms the party that is most aligned with it. Would Clinton have won without Ross Perot? Germany has a lot of problems but one might want to study the German two vote system for members of the Bundestag. Parties with over 5% of the second vote get some representation in the Bundestag even if they don't win any of the districts.
The old adage that bad politicians are elected by good people who don’t vote has never been more true. However it needs the addition: Especially in primaries.
I’m not sure our two party system is so much the problem. It’s not like Europe’s parliamentary democracies are currently providing a shining example. The fundamental difference is that our coalition building happens as part of the vote rather than after it.
Our biggest issue is that we went from smoke filled rooms where party leaders picked candidates that would drive the party’s agenda to a small “d” democratic process without considering who tends to vote in primaries. A classic example is that 30+ years ago safe seats were used to groom future party leaders, which requires a broader appeal and figuratively sober leadership. Now they are the source of each party’s clown caucus.
If there’s a message here it’s that if you can’t be bothered to make a choice required to vote in the primary then you really shouldn’t complain about the results when the general rolls around.
My main problem with the vote independent issue is what you described in 1912- we got Woodrow Wilson because of that. We have strong executive powers - we are not set up for European legislative models. In GA we could have klan governor if we had multiple candidates run. I don’t want that
I think that the best chance of getting centrists elected is through more widespread use of ranked choice voting. A relative handful of centrists not committed to party line voting could have substantial value in breaking stalemates like the present government shutdown in legislative bodies.
If twenty or thirty percent of senators and congresscritters voted on legislation with the other party it would break the stranglehold on legislation. Nothing gets done. Not sure where the money goes but we get no services for our money except debt.