Singin' the two-party system blues

Back when I was in grade school, I learned about America's great "two-party system." Basically, the theory was that because there were two distinct parties in the United States that competed for office, there was always a choice for voters. Yet, because there were only two parties, the government remained fairly stable.

Trouble is, there's nothing in the Constitution setting up political parties. In fact, George Washington warned against them.

But now, anyone not in one of these two unofficially official parties is essentially frozen out of the process. If the Founders had known this would have happened, they would have gone back to the drawing board.

The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan says it's increasingly clear this is a bad idea:

Right now the Republicans and Democrats in Washington seem, from the outside, to be an elite colluding against the voter. They're in agreement: immigration should not be controlled but increased, spending will increase, etc.

Are there some dramatic differences? Yes. But both parties act as if they see them not as important questions (gay marriage, for instance) but as wedge issues. Which is, actually, abusive of people on both sides of the question. If it's a serious issue, face it. Don't play with it.

I don't see any potential party, or potential candidate, on the scene right now who can harness the disaffection of growing portions of the electorate. But a new group or entity that could define the problem correctly--that sees the big divide not as something between the parties but between America's ruling elite and its people--would be making long strides in putting third party ideas in play in America again.

I'm no longer a member of the Libertarian Party, but I sure would like the opportunity to vote for Libertarian candidates here in Illinois, just like I have for president and vice president.

But as Jeff Trigg constantly points out, the Land of Lincoln requires third party candidates to meet ballot requirements that are far tougher to meet that those faced by the Democrats and the Republicans. No doubt he'll read this post and let us know the number of signatures.

I can't help but to think that if there were more parties -- whose candidates had some possibility of success -- that would make all parties somewhat more ideologically based, giving voters real choices in the ballot box. These parties would have to learn to cooperate with each other on issues with which they agreed, and fight it out on issues with which they do not. Cooperation, not constant bickering over wedge issues, might lead to better government.

But I remain convinced that the Big Government Party likes things just the way they are.

Cross posted to Peoria Pundit.