It’s time to shatter the destructive, archaic two-party dynamic. Because of the way American elections inherently work, only a competitive third party or independent candidate can logistically make that happen.  But this once herculean task is a heck of a lot easier now, because the death of the two-party system has already been initiated — not from the landing blow of a third party at the ballot box, but because the two major parties have finally blown themselves apart (scroll down to read more).

​

For years, the significant divisions within the parties have acted much like water that freezes inside a rock and eventually breaks it apart.  In truth, there have actually been multiple parties for years, even though they have cleverly disguised themselves as two.

​

This is yet another reason we must have more players in the game.  The ideological fractures and growing divisions within the existing parties will only make our overall national gridlock much worse. It’s already bad, but as the only two major parties get more internally jammed up, we are guaranteed that absolutely nothing gets solved.  Ever. Never. Ever.

​

The Democratic and Republican Parties have had 195 and 169 years, respectively, to get this right, yet things have progressively gotten worse.  We cannot afford to waste any more time traveling the path of least resistance — and voting for the lesser of the who in the heck cares — simply because the two major parties, however wounded, believe they have the perpetual right to keep the playing field all to themselves.

 

They don’t.

 

Perhaps the biggest mistake both parties have made is not understanding that, for decades, elections have not been a victory for either of them, regardless of who wins or loses. Elections are now about voting for the lesser of the evils than anything else.

​

Razor thin margins would be beneficial if they sent the desired message of disapproval to all the players in Washington. But to the contrary, they provide a false sense of accolades, where the winning side incorrectly interprets the rejection of the losing party as an endorsement of their own instead of a criticism of the entire process.  A temporary defeat may shame our leaders into compliance for a month or two, but it is largely ignored as a demand for better leadership.