The Republican and Democratic parties have dominated U.S. elections for so long that both have become rotten. They are the only two viable options on the ballot because our two-party system is conceptually flawed. Here is how I think a system that supports 16 separate parties over 4 years could work.
Design the system like a tournament over four years. For the first year, 16 different candidates from 16 different parties compete and debate. On Election Day in November of the first year, the people vote. The top 8 party candidates move onto the next round. They then compete and debate for the next year. On Election Day of the second year, the people vote and the four candidates who receive the most votes move onto round three. They compete and debate for the next year, and on Election Day of year three, the people vote. The two candidates with the most votes then move onto the fourth and final year of debates and competition. Then, on Election Day of the fourth year, which would already be the normal day for the presidential election anyway, the people vote and the winner of the election becomes the President Elect.
If a party wants to have its own competitions to determine who will represent their party, they'll have to do that on their own time. If they end up switching during the 4-year campaign, that's their problem. It would essentially be like a team switching quarterbacks mid-season, or like what the Democrats did in 2024 just months before the presidential election. It's doable, but this new 16-party system is designed to discourage the dominance of two parties. Competition within the Democratic and Republican parties would be good for the other 14 parties. If a candidate wants to run for president, he shouldn't have to run in one of two parties to have a successful campaign. Instead of depending on the Democratic or Republican party to choose them, they should consider competing while representing another party.
Media companies can have a field day covering every aspect and angle of the 4-year campaigns of each party. Debates can be held every week all around the country. Also, the country wouldn't be so divided anymore, because it wouldn't be split down the middle. The 16-party system would support the diversity of our country, and the people would feel more represented, because they wouldn't have to compromise for one of the two dominant parties. This will lead to more unity.
Ideally, the incumbent president would delegate the 4-year campaign to someone he or she thinks is most competent for the job. That way, the president could focus on being president.
The two-party system has left us with nothing but bad choices. It's paradoxical that a bad choice could be a better choice, but when both choices are bad like they have been for the past several presidential elections, it's sad to say that these days better is still bad.
In the end, voters would have to vote for one of two parties, as usual. However, it would be a more acceptable concession than what we currently have, because voters would know the candidates they voted for in the prior three years had their fair chance. How would we ensure that all 16 candidates get that fair chance? Our media today, which includes a thriving social media culture, is robust enough to get that job done. The candidates and their supporters just have to be diligent and promote their causes, their principles, and their candidates. Also, if they lose, they can still carry the momentum they garnered from their campaign into the next 4-year campaign.
Today's political climate in the U.S. resembles the Civil War era, where people basically had to choose between the Union and the Confederates. A 16-party election system would realistically reflect the diverse political landscape of our country. It would give other ideologies a chance to implement their ideas for a better nation. Most importantly, it would support the principle of freedom.
The goal of any party should be to build a nation where love reigns. We are all called to love in specific ways. Some of us are called to combine a handful of our passions into one unique purpose. I've spent the past few years trying to carve out a unique purpose in my life, only to find that the fabric of modern society is not very conducive to carving out one's own path. Therefore, I decided to be "everything to everyone, that by all means I might save some" (1 Corinthians 9:22). My work is not what I've chosen as much as it is my attempt to fill the needs I see when I can and where I can. I saw the need to share the truth with clarity, so I started writing. I saw the need to provide transportation and delivery services, so I started working with driving gig apps. I saw our towns and neighborhoods deteriorating, so I became a real estate investor to rehab distressed properties. I saw people struggling to sell their homes or find a home, so I became a real estate agent. I do all of these jobs out of love for the profession itself, and out of love for my neighbors. What Pat Green says is true, "If you're not in it for the love, you're in it for the money."
Commentaires