This country has had a twoparty problem for years – the duopoly. So, what is the duopoly?
In an article on the Independent Voters Network (IVN), it is cleared up. It is written by Shawn Griffiths who owes no allegiance to any party but votes on individual candidates and policy issues.
In summary:
What is the duopoly? On the surface this may seem like a commonsense question: We have a political system dominated by two major parties. Hence, we have a duopoly. That simple, right? Yet, the reasons we have a two-party duopoly in the US are far more nuanced.
The Republican and Democratic Parties win nearly every partisan electoral contest in the US. But this is not the reason for the duopoly, but a symptom of it, and unfortunately the damaging effects the duopoly has had on the political process atlarge has been normalized. Allow me to explain.
A monopoly is defined as “the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.” An entity has such a grip on an industry that it is the only supplier of goods and services within that industry and competitors cannot emerge to challenge it.
A duopoly is the same, just with two entities instead of one.
Americans would not accept this in any industry. We want choices. We want more than McDonalds and Burger King. We want more than Coke and Pepsi. And if our preferred choice fails to deliver quality service, we want the freedom to take our business somewhere else.
Now, it may be that within an industry, one or two dominant entities emerge, and consumers simply prefer these entities. However, the existence of competition incentivizes the dominant entities to continue to listen and respond to consumer demand.
Amazon, for instance, cannot get complacent or else it will lose customers. And the next Amazon could emerge and become the dominant entity within the industry. Thus, emergence or existence of competition inevitably impacts the evolution of the biggest companies in any industry.
That is how a free market ideally is supposed to work, and the same could be said for the political process. However, there is something inherently wrong with the way the US political system operates, because elected officials are no longer responsive to voters’ demands.
Why? Well, consider the following analogy:
Imagine going out to dinner but there are only two restaurant options from which to choose. The customer service may be sloppy in both, and no matter how much a customer raises grievances with the limited options on the menu, nothing changes. Instead of adapting their business practices to an evolving consumer base, they increasingly dis tance themselves from the interests of consumers.
What’s worse, employees of these two restaurants also write the rules and regulations that govern the service industry and other employees enforce the rules.
Sounds crazy, right? Why would we ever allow this to happen? Well, this is essentially the situation of the US political system.
The entire electoral process has been designed to give an advantage to the two major parties and their members. This advantages: taxpayer-funded primaries, how election districts are drawn, who is allowed on the ballot, who can raise money and how much, who gets voter data, who gets to debate, and how election laws are enforced.
And that just scratches the surface. To read more of the article by Shawn Griffiths, visit IVN.us.
Maybe it is time for a change.