6. Conclusion: Imagining a Better Future, with More and Better Parties

The party-centric view aims to change parties by altering the party system. The argument is as follows:

• Parties are the essential and inevitable institutions of modern mass democracy. Parties organize elections and government.
• Because parties operate within a party system, the most effective way to encourage better parties is to change the party system.
• Illiberal extremism follows from a binary, highly polarized party system, because extremism emerges from radicalized in-group/out-group conflict.
• Thus, the party system requires change. Breaking the core problem of escalating binary, us-versus-them competition requires adding new parties to realign and reorient partisan competition.
• More parties can make for better parties by forcing more competition on existing parties. New parties can build new models of organizing and mobilizing underrepresented constituencies and aggregating policies in innovative ways—crucial roles that parties are essential for playing.
• By changing the rules by which parties compete, we can have better parties.

Understandably, at a time in which hyper-partisan polarization is a destructive force in American politics, a pro-parties argument can feel counterintuitive—especially since it contradicts the deeply ingrained “democratic wish” and the candidate-centric, individualist narratives of American politics. Yet, this approach has repeatedly fallen short.

This paper argues we should stop trying to find our way around political parties and, instead of weakening them, we should make our political parties as robust and healthy as possible. Political parties make democracy possible by structuring policy alternatives, supporting and vetting candidates, mobilizing voters, forming majority governing coalitions, and providing essential links between diverse citizens and their government. Not all parties do this well. But without political parties, it is very difficult to accomplish these crucial democracy-sustaining roles.

The two major parties in the United States are not performing these roles productively today. Given both the diversity of American society, and the dangers of binary zero-sum politics, parties in a two-party system cannot do what parties need to do to make modern representative democracy function. They cannot be reformed from the inside because their failures are a function of the party system. Thus, the moment demands reforms that not only make multiple parties possible, but give them the support they need to make modern democracy coherent, legitimate, and resilient.

The two-party system and earlier reformers have hindered political parties from fulfilling their crucial role in a thriving democracy. Therefore, the challenge of our time is to create something new by establishing new and improved parties. Building more and better parties is the keystone in rebuilding our democracy.

Changing the electoral system to allow for more parties to compete and innovate, of course, cannot guarantee better parties. It can merely create an environment in which better parties are possible because new opportunities are open and competitive pressures reward innovation. This is the best we can do.

However, as with any reform, we must also compare it to both the alternatives and the status quo.

The status quo is to hope that the two-party system self-corrects. Yet, for reasons I’ve explained both above and in more detail elsewhere, the current “doom loop” is not self-correcting, but instead self-escalating. The more both sides perceive themselves as fighters for complete control in a zero-sum, winner-takes-all game, the more winning takes priority. Distrust breeds distrust. Extremism breeds extremism. Fair play becomes impossible without a shared sense of fairness. Striking first becomes rational if you believe the other side is about to eliminate your rights. This escalation feeds on itself, hence the phrase “doom loop.” The binary zero-sum power struggle has erased the political center and restricted the potential majority ruling coalitions to two opposing alternatives, each treating the other as an enemy.

History is clear that this binary condition is highly unstable. It leads to a kind of “pernicious polarization” that is a five-alarm warning of impending democratic collapse. Extremist groups are most powerful under polarized binary conditions because such conflict breeds uncertainty and hatred – the seeds of extremism. Eventually, without the ability to build a center-oriented governing coalition, political leaders can only build majorities that include the most extreme elements on their side. Extremism fosters more extremism.

The logic of escalating conflict encourages both sides to see only one path forward: total domination. But if democracy depends on political losers, such domination is democratic destruction. If 45 percent of the country feels permanently shut out of the national governing authority, the results will not be a peaceful acceptance of defeat—especially if that 45 percent has been radicalized as part of the fight for total dominance. These conditions fuel extremism by reinforcing the belief that an out-group’s mere existence threatens the in-group. The more Democrats and Republicans announce publicly that their plan is to gain total victory, the more they radicalize against each other.

The status quo is to continue down the doom loop. This is a likely path toward democratic breakdown.

A second (inadequate) alternative is more modest than changing the party system: It is to slightly readjust the candidate selection process, hoping to elect more moderates and fewer extremists. This is the approach of open parties, ranked-choice voting, and Final Five Voting (the combination).

This “Elevate-the-Moderates,” candidate-centric reform may succeed in particular places because of distinct place-based or candidate-based dynamics. But reform sustainability is a significant concern. History should make us cautious. This incremental approach is unlikely to last beyond particular candidates, and does not change the underlying dynamics of the political system. It does not reallocate and reorganize power in meaningful ways. It may buy us time and help move towards more long-term reforms. But it cannot be a substitute for strengthening democracy with parties.

Pro-parties reform gives us the best shot at breaking the doom loop by creating a space for new parties that can reorient the dynamics of binary, zero-sum polarization. It gives us the most likelihood of creating better parties. It is both an immediate-term solution in fusion voting (moderate parties can emerge and hold the balance of power) and a long-term solution (multiple parties can compete in a fluid, multidimensional electoral space better able to represent the diversity of the country).

Given that we are in a democracy emergency, it is reasonable to try many things at once. But we cannot try everything. We must act prudently. For reforms to achieve long-term success, they need to be thoughtfully planned. Experience and a wealth of political science research show that reforms solely targeting candidates while sidestepping parties are neither sustainable nor effective. These types of reforms draw backlash and may not even work in the short-term.

Though the status quo feels locked in, historically it is precisely the moments in which the status quo feels locked in when major change is most likely. This is because rigidity and brittleness are the same.

Change always happens two ways: slowly, then all at once. This is especially true in the U.S. party system because a two-party system offers few release valves. Instead, pressure builds and builds.

The signs are powerful that U.S. democracy is now entering a fourth significant period of reform. Though still early, increasing interest in structural change is real. During the initial phases of a reform period, it’s critical to be rigorous about the institutional legacy we wish to pass on. Yet given the clear democracy emergency alongside this opportunity, it is sometimes hard to think straight. It is easy to rely on the near past. It is harder to learn from the more distant past. Perhaps the most challenging in moments of deep pessimism is imagining a different, better future.

Yet we must retain some optimism. We must see that the urgency of combating extremism is equally a chance to build a more representative, effective, and full democracy for the twenty-first century. There are no shortcuts. If we succeed, it will be only because we did the hard work to make more and better parties possible. So let’s get started.