Frustration with the American political system is at an all-time high. Groups and media companies, from Reuters to the New York Times, express the views of countless Americans who are upset or distrustful of elected officials, the electoral system, and political parties. According to the Pew Research Center, while distrust of government has been low for about 20 years, it has reached its lowest in seven decades as of 2023.

Regarding the Democratic and Republican parties, Pew stated that a third of American adults feel effectively represented by the Democratic Party, and roughly the same feel that way for the Republican Party.  Twenty-five percent of adults expressed feeling that neither party represented their values. 

So, what happens if more are added? Many countries, such as Canada, the UK, Germany, Ireland, Iceland, Poland and Ukraine, have more than two political parties. What’s stopping America from adding more parties if the populace is unsatisfied?

In fact, America has more than two parties. Parties such as the Green, Libertarian, Constitution and No Labels parties have made plays for or have succeeded in getting candidates on the ballot. Jill Stein of the Green Party and Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party ran alongside Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in 2016. However, as explained by DePaul Journalism Professor Chris Bury, the current election laws and practices prevent them from gaining a foothold, particularly regarding the Electoral College.

“If we had a multiparty system, it would be far more likely that the country would consistently elect someone who had not won the popular vote just because of the math required to win in the Electoral College,” Bury said.  “We have certainly had some attempts at a third party, you know, in our history, but because we have the Electoral College, it makes it difficult for them to gain a foothold, largely because it’s almost going to guarantee if we had a thriving multiparty system that consistently someone would win who did not command a majority of the popular vote, and that would certainly anger a lot of Americans.”

For multiparty systems to function, proportional representation is needed, a process that does not require a winner-take-all scenario. 

“It is a proportional representation system that is the key factor that gives rise to a multiparty system,” Dr. Wayne Steger of the DePaul political science department said in an email. “A multiparty system does not occur without that. Proportional representation allocates seats in legislation in proportion to the party’s vote share. This does negate the point of gerrymandering.”

Dr. Christina Rivers, a political science professor at DePaul, explains how proportional representation works.

“In some countries, if you have an election, and let’s say it’s for city council, and a third of the vote goes towards one party, a third of the vote goes to another, and a third of the vote goes to another,” Rivers said. “So 25% and 25% and 30%. That person who got 30% in that party doesn’t get everything. The body will then say, ‘Okay, it’ll be represented by 30% of the leading party and then 25% of this other party and 25% of this other party.’”

In the current winner-take-all system, each state is split up into districts (in Chicago, they are called wards for aldermanic elections). One person can only represent each district, even if three candidates from three parties are running. Whoever wins gets the whole district, and the other candidates’ votes are considered wasted votes. From there, a process called gerrymandering can take place.

In short, gerrymandering occurs when a winning party for a district redraws district boundaries to give their party an advantage over another. A prime example of a gerrymandered state is Wisconsin.

“Wisconsin is a classically evenly divided state, 50-51%,” Bury said. “If you look at all the recent national and state elections, they’re very close, yet because of gerrymandering, the Republicans have controlled the State House and the State Assembly for years.”

As seen with Wisconsin, gerrymandering can lead to districts that are not connected. Rivers even described gerrymandering as Democrats and Republicans trying to draw each other out of existence. She also expresses how when districts are drawn, they are overwhelmingly geared towards the winning party, which can lead to issues of representation and even split districts in half.

“They’re supposed to represent all of you,” Rivers said.  “But if you’re in a really politically diverse district, and your representative is different in the same way if you’re in the blue party, and it’s a Green Party person that won, then typically you’re not going to get represented that much.”

This poses an issue regarding the representation of underresourced communities and communities of color. While racial-based gerrymandering is unconstitutional when a majority of African-American, Latino or voters of Asian descent identify with the Democratic Party as of 2023, the effect can lead to racial blocs, which cannot be challenged in court as the intent of racial bias must be shown.

“The Supreme Court ordered Alabama to redraw the map,”  Bury said. “Right now, there’s only one majority-Black Congressional district despite the large Black population in Alabama, and now they are having to add a second majority-Black Congressional district.”

With a multiparty system, because each party gets a seat in Congress, the need to redistrict becomes obsolete or, at the very least, less necessary. Matthew Yglesias of Vox magazine stated that larger states like Texas or California would still require splitting up.

However, gerrymandering isn’t the only issue multiparty systems can solve. To reiterate, many Americans are dissatisfied with political parties. By adding more options, or at least drawing hard lines between the varying viewpoints of Democrats and Republicans, the public is given more options to pick a party that closely aligns with their view.

“Another benefit is that proportional representation would enable more political parties so that more people would be able to find a political party that more closely aligns with their preferences,” Steger said. “The main effect would be to make explicit the divisions that already exist within the major parties. Instead of Democrats, for example, we would get a progressive and a liberal party or perhaps multiple parties with these broader ideological groups subdividing into demographic-based parties. They would still have to work together after elections to create a majority coalition in legislatures.”

As Steger mentioned, parties would be encouraged to work closer together. By forming alliances with parties that align with their goals, coalitions can develop, which could theoretically promote compromise.

“It could force compromise,” Bury said. “If different factions of multiple parties had to agree on something that benefited both or all of their constituents, then I think it could be a way to mobilize support about items that are broadly popular. I think in Canada, the way the multiparty system has worked in recent history is that the centrists and the progressive liberals have compromised on popular items. That has been helpful. On the other hand, we saw in Britain a few years ago when the center and the far right compromised on Brexit, and it was a disaster for Britain.”

As seen with the UK’s departure from the European Union, the multiparty system is no magic medicine. In fact, a multiparty system is infeasible without significant constitutional change, as seen with the Electoral College.

“You’re constantly hustling and trading coalitions when you have a multiparty system,” Rivers said. “It’s not this marriage, right? And depending on how much power the majority party has, they’re able to kind of forge through without coalescing, but if they have a thin majority, they have to coalesce, and you know, of course, coalitions can sound like sellouts if they’re deciding on something that you don’t like. So, sometimes, if there are too many parties, and there’s not a solid central or majority party that can keep some consistency, it’s just deadlock.”

Bury also spoke about how, with our current laws, any legislation would be “dead on arrival” once it reached the Senate. According to Bury, in the Senate specifically, this is due to a filibuster.

According to the website of the US Senate, a filibuster is a vague term to describe a tactic used by members to stall the vote on legislation, effectively keeping it in limbo. It takes 60 votes to negate a filibuster, and as Bury stated in his interview, even in a two-party system, that is a challenge.

Rivers echoes a similar sentiment, explaining how multiple parties can be too much of a good thing to the point of deadlock. When referencing the successful implementation of multiparty systems, she looks to countries such as the UK, Germany and Spain, which have around six parties, with three being the top players.

 When it comes to a multiparty system, there is no magic medicine. Whether a party is two or three, the trials and tribulations of governing are messy and sometimes contradictory.

“If a third-party system is going to make inroads, it’s got to start small and be successful in a state legislature or in congressional districts,” Bury said. “And the thing is, you understand. Theoretically, a multi-party system should produce more compromise, but that doesn’t always happen, as we’ve seen in Brexit and Israel. So, you know, it’s certainly a double-edged sword.”

The power still rests in the hands of the voters when it comes down to the wire. As seen with the rise of the Nazis, when political climates favor a particular perspective, that perspective bleeds into the political scene. At this time, the political environment favors extreme nationalism worldwide, with movements such as the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement and Les Nationalités in France gaining traction in circles. Movements such as these and tensions from polarization can come about in any system. What matters most is how the system is handled. As Rivers said, “The devil’s in the details.”

“One of the beauties of a multiparty system is that it allows for parties that some of us might feel are horrific,” River said. “It allows them a voice without allowing them to take over, typically if it is a two-party, and it’s either all of them or not. Now, sometimes, that can change. We’re in a world climate now that’s very open to a fascist approach to leadership. We had Trump, but you had Bolsonaro in Brazil. You have Orban in Hungary.”

Whether it is two parties or three, true power rests in the hands of the voters and what they want.

Header by Rafa Villamar