Bershidsky: Feel left out? Blame the two-party system

A common complaint of both Democrats and Republicans is that they feel underrepresented or unrepresented in Washington. Some of them assume that’s because politicians are co-opted once they take office. Others feel left out because simply because they backed candidates who didn’t win.

This disappointment is a symptom of what Arend Lijphart, the Dutch-American political scientist who wrote about patterns of democracy, described as a majoritarian democracy that “concentrates political power in the hands of a bare majority — and often even merely a plurality instead of a majority.” He attributed this flaw to the United States’ winner-take-all system and a process that is “exclusive, competitive and adversarial.”

In Lijphart’s model, the U.S. system is antithetical to a consensus or negotiation democracy. Such a democracy is characterized by “inclusiveness, bargaining and compromise” and found in the multiparty form of government in Europe that allows even small parties to draft laws and see them passed. Sometimes, they can even contribute leaders to the executive branch, if a ruling coalition cannot be built without their participation.

I live in Germany and see such a system in action. Of course, it couldn’t be adopted wholesale in the United States. That would require an overhaul of the Constitution, an impossible precondition. Yet thinking about how it could work could be a first step toward finding a solution to the underrepresentation problem. So let’s imagine what would happen if the Iowa caucuses were a German nationwide election.

As the Iowa campaign unfolded, I could see clearly that the United States has more than just two parties. At rallies and caucuses, I was amazed to find how easy it was to recognize the leading candidates’ supporters by sight, and without identifying symbols such as badges or T-shirts.

A roomful of young people most likely assembled to support Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. A crowd of women and their husbands and kids? Most likely there for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. A boisterous party probably was a crowd for billionaire Donald Trump. An audience for Texas Sen. Ted Cruz resembled a church congregation, and gatherings for Florida Sen. Marco Rubio took on the aspect of business conventions. I’m oversimplifying, but after several days on the campaign trail, even the mood of different audiences was a giveaway: Sanders crowds were celebratory; Trump backers let off anger but also seemed out for some fun; Cruz supporters tended to be sober and serious.

Let’s imagine now that all the candidates who received more than 5 percent support in the caucuses were then seated in an Iowa Parliament. The distribution of seats would be 27.5 percent Clinton, 27. 3 percent Sanders, 16.6 percent Cruz, 14.6 percent Trump and 13.9 percent Rubio.

So the state would be governed by a coalition of Sanders-led socialists and center-left Clinton Democrats, which together would control about 55 percent of the votes. On the right, a centrist party headed by Rubio, a Christian one led by Cruz and Trump’s populists would be sufficiently represented to give their voters a voice. Clinton, on the strength of her party’s narrow victory, would be Iowa’s prime minister or chancellor, and Sanders would hold the second-highest job.

But as things stand, if Clinton wins the general election, the young Sanders voters probably will feel alienated because they wouldn’t be represented in her cabinet. Similarly, Republican voters will be excluded from the executive branch and will express their discontent in Congress, resulting in continued gridlock.

Unlike the president’s powerful role, the two-party system is not enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Maybe Americans should begin to recognize that there are at least five, perhaps more, potentially strong parties, represented by the leaders of the current presidential race. If they were formalized and represented in the Congress as parties rather than factions, coalition negotiations would probably become easier. Such an arrangement allows voters to understand more clearly who speaks for their particular worldview, and the deals between formal parties are seen not as backroom arrangements but as products of open negotiation and legitimate compromise.

This is a pipe dream, of course, but it’s worth a thought.

This story was originally published February 9, 2016 at 4:01 PM with the headline "Bershidsky: Feel left out? Blame the two-party system."