By Mary Thurmond | Photo Editor
American politics feels less like a democracy and more like a never-ending custody battle. Voters get stuck in the middle while two massive parties argue over who gets to “own” them. The Republican and Democratic parties were created to help organize elections and mobilize people. Today, they mainly organize outrage, and they’ve gotten extremely good at it.
Political parties no longer represent Americans; they represent themselves. According to Gallup, a record number of Americans now identify as politically independent. Even among people who lean toward a party, majorities say they feel poorly represented and frustrated with the system. Yet the two-party structure still controls nearly every ballot, debate stage, committee chairmanship and policy discussion in America.
And it’s not because they’re doing a great job.
Modern political parties thrive on polarization because polarization pays. Political scientists have documented a rise in negative partisanship, in which people don’t vote out of hope or alignment — they vote out of fear that the other side will win. Parties have learned that anger drives voters to the polls and donors to their credit cards. Fear is one of the most effective fundraising tools ever invented, and both parties use it constantly.
The cost of this obsession with outrage is that voters stop being treated like human beings and start being treated like jersey colors. The moment a person is labeled “red” or “blue,” the nuance disappears. Candidates aren’t rewarded for having thoughtful or unconventional ideas; they’re rewarded for sticking to party lines and punishing anyone who doesn’t.
If a candidate steps too far outside the boundaries of party orthodoxy, they risk losing funding, endorsements, primary support and a viable political future. The system discourages creativity, compromise and individuality — the exact qualities democracy is supposed to protect.
Independent and third-party candidates are hit even harder. Ballot access laws can require thousands of signatures or huge fees that major-party candidates don’t have to deal with. Debate rules, often written by bipartisan commissions, exclude candidates who don’t already have major-party support. Even in districts where most voters want something new, structural barriers make sure they rarely get the chance.
The wildest part is none of this is required. The United States Constitution doesn’t mention political parties at all. The founders didn’t design a two-party system — it formed on its own and then built structures to preserve itself. George Washington himself warned that political parties would become “potent engines” of manipulation, turning citizens against each other to gain power. More than 200 years later, we’re living exactly what he feared.
If political parties once helped organize a developing democracy, they now limit an established one. The two-party system makes complex issues feel small. Topics like health care, climate policy, reproductive rights, gun safety, immigration and education get flattened into party slogans instead of being treated like real problems that affect real people. Politicians are expected to mirror their party’s stance, even when their constituents disagree. The system forces candidates to choose party loyalty over local needs, and voters can tell.
It’s no wonder Americans are exhausted. Gridlock becomes the norm. Compromise becomes political suicide. Every election becomes a battle for existential survival because voters have been trained to believe that the “other side” winning means the country collapsing.
Democracy doesn’t require political parties, and it certainly doesn’t require only two of them. Many democracies across the world use ranked-choice voting and multiparty systems that allow for more viewpoints, more collaboration and less extremism. In these systems, voters aren’t forced into ideological corners. They can support candidates who genuinely reflect their values, not just the “least bad” option their party hands them.
Even modest reforms in the U.S. point in the same direction. States that use open primaries see higher participation and a broader range of candidates. Cities that have adopted ranked-choice voting report more civil campaigns and less negative advertising. Independent redistricting commissions have reduced gerrymandering in places that adopted them, making elections more competitive and outcomes more representative.
The more we loosen the grip of political parties, the more voters actually get a voice.
Democracy isn’t supposed to be a team sport. It isn’t supposed to be about red vs. blue, or who gets bragging rights on election night. It’s supposed to be about representing all people, not just the ones who fit neatly into a party’s strategy.
It isn’t “Why aren’t they helping us anymore?”, but rather, “Why are we still letting them run the show?”
