Now, see, RuthAnne, here’s where you’re incorrect: The system isn’t “rigged” against someone who’s not D or R. Saying it’s “rigged” implies the outcome is fraudulent, i.e., the votes are 2000 for person x and 1000 for person y but the counters switch the numbers deliberately. I think sometimes that does occur in the US but rarely or on a small scale.
As it is, it’s just developed that most American politics are dominated by the D and R parties. The “alternatives” are like 1) Italy or countries like them, where there are like 30 political parties, all of whom have to constantly bargain with one another to get anything done; or 2) 1-party systems like China. So “it’s just developed this way” doesn’t really mean the system is “rigged,” it just means that the R & D parties have a lot of clout.
While this is perhaps a more loose usage of “rigged” than a dictionary would give, it is true the system is set up in such a way to so heavily favor the Democrats or Republicans… or more accurately, whatever the two major parties are, which has been the Democrats or Republicans for the last 150 years or so. It’s “rigged” in the same way gerrymandering is “rigging” an election.
But whether “rigged” is the proper term, what is clear is that our system, specifically its first-past-the-post nature, is set up to favor the 2-party system. Undoubtedly the people who set up first past the post had no intention of cementing a 2-party system (political parties as we know them did not even really exist at the time of the country’s founding), but the maintenance of it certainly does continue to favor such a thing far more intentionally.
For those unaware, first past the post, also known as plurality voting, is an election system in which everyone votes for one candidate, and whoever gets the most votes wins. While it has the benefit of being simple and easy to understand, it strongly discourages people to actually vote for who they think is the best candidate; constant talk of “throwing your vote away” or “a vote for anyone but Candidate A is a vote for Candidate B!” demonstrates this quite easily.
While there are a number of possible fixes in the US, the one I think has the most promise is
Ranked Choice Voting. While it is possible things like proportional representation, or a mixture of proportional representation and first-past-the-post (which is what Italy does), I favor RCV as it would be the easiest to implement and seems to be the most popular. On the state level Maine has it in place, Massachusetts and Alaska are going to have referendums on putting it into effect statewide this year.
Ultimately, to say “it’s just developed this way” is to ignore the fact that this supposed development was mostly the result of the electoral system that is practically designed to favor our current situation of the Democrats and Republicans being so dominant. You cite Italy, but note that Italy’s voting system is set up differently than the US’s; what we see is a consequence of that.
