The State of the Parties Address

Our two party system is created by our electoral system. To talk to about the pros and cons of the parties is impossible without talking about the pros and cons of our electoral system. It is true, we are a two party system, but our parties are far from united. They consist of factions and the politicians within a party have differing values and ideologies with respect to many issues that reflect (or supposedly reflect) the values and ideologies of their constituents. This makes for two rounds of compromise. The first is internal. The party members from around the country must work together to create a platform that will satisfy as many of their supporters (nationally) as possible. This renders our party platforms almost meaningless and is the reason for low discipline within the two parties. The second round of compromise happens between the parties. If one party has a clear majority and the presidency, the round is not necessary and the only substantial compromise will take place internally within the party. I believe the biggest failing our party system is due to a failing of our electorate system. Our electorate system drawn in manor that excludes some voters from having an influence over policy. I would remedy this by implementing proportional representation. The greatest benefit our country could stand to gain from a proportional system is not the multiple party system that it would ultimately lead to, but that it would give justly proportional influence to those voters whose votes are often rendered meaningless due to the way their electoral district is drawn. To do this though, House and Senate electoral districts would have need to combined into one electoral district for each state. Everyone would vote for their party of choice, and the state parties would get to choice their allotted number of representatives. For this to work though, every senator would have to be up for election at the same time, so I am not sure how this would affect the responsiveness of the Senate during the years they don't have to worry about getting reelected. This would create parties with meaningful platforms and strict discipline among members. It would reduce the amount of compromise in the first stage and increase the amount of compromise in the second. But because voters are not silenced by their electorate, the second round of compromise would lead to a more justly proportional compromise and cause policy to more accurately reflect the preferences of all Americans.

A side note: the greatest injustice in America today is the fact that our fellow citizens who reside in the District of Columbia are without representation in Congress. Because the constitution only provides representation in Congress for states, D.C. not being a state or officially party of a state prevents them from electing politicians to the House or to the Senate. They are given one non-voting member but does not give them the voice in Congress that the rest of us enjoy. D.C.'
s population of 581530 entitles them to one member of the house but one could argue that does not entitle them to the 2 senators statehood would provide (despite the fact that D.C.
s population is greater than that of Wyoming who gets to enjoy the representation 2 senators). So I believe that, short of statehood, D.C. should, at the very least, be allocated one house seat and included in the state of Maryland or Virginia for the purposes of electing members of the Senate.