A student came up to me recently and asked, “What is a superdelegate?” Resisting the temptation to say that it was a character from the Marvel Cinematic Universe, I explained that when the major political parties select a nominee for the presidency, most of the votes come from elected delegates (selected by primaries and caucuses) but that the parties also give votes to long-standing, high-status members.
The student looked confused and said, “Isn’t that undemocratic?” After thinking, “What a great question!” I told him that political parties are not part of our constitutional system and so they don’t need to be democratic. The student was a bit upset by this, and I understand where he is coming from. We have two parties that wield tremendous power and influence, and yet are not subject to constitutional limitations and were not supposed to be part of our government. In fact, the two-party system has caused great harm to the system created by the Founders.
The two-party system started almost immediately after the Constitution was created and from that time, and for most of our history, we’ve had two major parties. However, James Madison and the other Founding Fathers didn’t expect this and didn’t plan for it.
James Madison’s main concern going into the Constitutional Convention in 1787 was how to control self-interested groups, or what he called “factions,” which at that time were the states. Madison described the problem, writing, “Thirteen Sovereignties pulling against each other … will soon bring ruin on the whole.” To offset the selfish behavior of the states, Madison came up with a system that would pit them against each other in a national legislature.
Since no one state could achieve a majority in Congress on its own, each would have to find common ground or make deals with other states. Madison’s solution was an ingenious way to solve the problem of multiple factions. However, what if instead of 13 or more factions, you have only two? When the two-party system emerged, the parties became our factions and that has led to failures in our constitutional system.
One area where we can see the two-party system causing harm is in the creation of congressional districts. Districting is done by state legislatures and, as they have become more partisan, more districts have been gerrymandered, which is drawing a district to advantage a political party.
As a result of gerrymandering, in the last several elections only about 10% of the congressional districts had close races in the general election. (In 2012, Nate Silver did a study that found only 35 of the 435 districts were truly “swing” districts.) The creation of so many districts with strong Republican or Democratic majorities has led to a dysfunctional Congress because members of Congress from those districts are not incentivized to compromise.
If you are a Republican candidate in a district that is 65% Republican, then you will not likely lose the general election. However, you might lose if you have a more conservative Republican run against you in a primary. In districts dominated by Democrats, a Democratic candidate need only worry about a more liberal candidate challenge. The result is that both parties have moved away from the center and do not reach across the aisle and work with the other.
We had the least productive Congress in history in 2013-14, and most recent years haven’t been much better. Madison’s plan to force factions to work together works best if there are many factions, not two parties locked in a stare-down because they are trying to increase their own power at the expense of the other.
The development of the two-party system also has a negative impact on the effectiveness of the checks and balances. The framers of the Constitution expected that by giving the branches power over each other, it would stop excessive power grabs. However, this works only if the loyalty of the branch is to itself. If the loyalty shifts to a political party, then the motivation to check another branch is reduced if both are controlled by the same party.
As of this writing we are seeing this play out with the impeachment proceedings. In the House, only Democrats supported the impeachment inquiry and most are predicting that President Trump would survive a removal vote in the Senate regardless of the strength or weakness of the evidence because of the Republican majority. It seems the calculus for many in Congress is not about preserving congressional power (or even doing the right thing under the Constitution), but rather to serve the interest of their political party.
George Washington saw this coming. At the end of his presidency, in his farewell address, he warned his generation (and ours) to avoid political parties. He was concerned that party divisions would “open the door to foreign influence and corruption.” Even worse, Washington was concerned that this could lead to the rise of a tyrant. He stated, “Sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.”
Political parties do provide important services such as organization and guidance for voters. Even so, we, and our leaders, should remember that parties are not part of our constitutional system and that excessive loyalty to a party is harmful.
When we adhere to state loyalty first, as during the Articles of Confederation period that Madison was reacting to, or regional loyalties as we did during the Civil War, our system breaks down and we fail to find democratic solutions to our problems.
It is important for us all to remember that we should be Americans first. This is why the president and all members of Congress take an oath to “defend the Constitution of the United States.” That oath is at odds with any who would put party before country.
(Dan Marcus, a one-time lawyer, is a social studies teacher. Dan teaches the civics course and competition “We the People” at John Stark Regional High School in Weare and is a resident of Concord.)