The Divided US Political System: Why It Matters

Imagine a mile-long beach, with two snow cone shops. It’s simple economics: positioning shops at 1/4 and 3/4 mile would serve customers optimally, with the maximum convenience and minimal travel. Yet, one shop owner argues that being right next to the competitor attracts more customers, despite the inconvenience to the general public. This scenario reflects the US political system, where both major parties are incentivized to position themselves just right, often at the expense of the broader public.

Theoretical vs. Practical Polarization

From an outside perspective, it may seem that the US is equally divided between Democratic and Republican candidates, as evidenced by electoral outcomes. Yet, this broader division masks a more nuanced reality. Only about 55% of eligible voters participate in the election, making them the ones that are “evenly divided” between the two parties. This leaves the other 45% of the eligible voters unaccounted for. If even a portion of these individuals were to participate and vote their preferences, it could drastically alter the electoral landscape.

The Power Dynamics of a 50-50 Divide

Our political system’s design drives candidates and parties to achieve a 50% threshold to win. This threshold ensures that the winning candidate gets the least opposition and maximum support. However, parties are divided into two major establishments, each with nearly equal memberships. This results in the narrow margins we often observe in elections, as neither party can outvote the other convincingly.

The Importance of Voter Turnout

Much of the political deadlock and division can be attributed to the significant gap in voter turnout. These non-voters, making up 45% of the potential electorate, likely hold different views than the 55% who participate. It is highly improbable that the opinions of the 45% mirror the views of those who turn out to vote. If these individuals were to cast their ballots, the landscape would change. Their inputs would force political parties to nominate candidates that appeal to their concerns and values, rather than just the 55% incumbents.

Take Bernie Sanders as an example. In 2016, he galvanized the unengaged segment of the electorate, inspiring them to participate. Unfortunately, the establishment parties did not want him on the ballot, suggesting that the parties are not responsive to the needs and preferences of the broader public. This illustrates the Catch-22 of the US political system: the 45% who do not vote are not inspired by the establishment candidates, yet their voices are crucial in determining the quality of future candidates.

Conclusion

For the US political system to truly benefit the majority of its citizens, there needs to be an increase in voter turnout and more responsiveness from the established parties to the broader electorate. By focusing on including the unengaged segment, we can achieve better-quality candidates and more representative outcomes in elections. Moving forward, it is essential for political parties to shift their focus and actively engage with the 45% in order to create a more inclusive and effective democratic process.