Why does America consist of only two major political parties?

In light of the recent chaotic scenes coming from the US House of Representatives as the Republicans and Democrats struggle to agree on a Speaker, a lack of who paralyzes government spending, including those related to foreign aid to, for example, Ukraine, Palestine and Israel, the question on why US politics base themselves on only two majors parties has once again moved to the forefront. The Newsweek publication has weighed the possibility of a third major party ever emerging on Washington's horizon. Caliber.Az reprints this article.

"The American political landscape is changing in a way that gives both political parties reason for concern. More people than ever want a third major party—they believe the nation needs one.

Gallup, which has been tracking this question for 20 years, found that 63 percent of US adults now agree that the Republican and Democratic parties do 'such a poor job' of representing the people that 'a third major party is needed'.

There's also a shift in who is pushing for a third party. While Independents are still most likely to want this, with 75 percent supporting the idea, Republicans are the primary force behind the latest increase in support, Gallup found. A majority of GOP respondents, 58 percent, now want a third party. Support among Democrats has ticked up also, although it remains at less than half, at 46 percent.

As a former Republican myself, none of this surprises me. I hear from fellow disaffected Republicans all the time. The latest Gallup poll was taken before Kevin McCarthy's ouster as House speaker, and since that happened I've heard from even more people—including those like me who consider ourselves true conservatives—looking for solutions.

When the topic of a third party comes up, it's often in the context of a candidate for the presidency, and fears that the candidate might 'spoil' that election. But political races take place all over the country at the local and state levels, where Americans feel some of the most immediate, tangible effects of political leadership.

And in these races, in which fears of 'spoiling' usually play less of a role, there are new opportunities for people to pursue roles in government. I know because I recently announced an effort to enter a statewide race as a third party candidate, seeking a spot on the Texas Railroad Commission. [The misleadingly named agency has nothing to do with railroads, and instead regulates oil and gas. I previously ran as a Republican.]

Following my announcement, I heard from multiple third parties looking to work with me to make that happen. It's a sign that in politics there are new opportunities to be more of a 'free agent'. But there are also tremendous barriers to entry. To get ballot access for state elections around the country, candidates need signatures, funding, and a team of people to help. Just how many signatures are needed, and in what form, isn't even clear in some cases.

In Texas, a law that's more than a century old requires such a candidate to get a specific percentage of votes in a previous election. The net result is that in order to be on the ballot, I will have 75 days to collect more than 80,000 signatures of registered voters who then don't participate in the 2024 Republican or Democratic primaries [because if they do, their signatures on my petition will be voided]. A federal judge blocked that law this summer, which could make the process easier, but the state contested the ruling, and it remains in place for now.

Also, in many places, signatures have to be 'wet', meaning made with pen and paper, so outreach in modern, digital ways doesn't cut it.

While the fees to appear on a ballot are generally not prohibitively expensive, launching a campaign and traveling to collect all those signatures can be very costly, even totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars. And if you have to fight a court battle to gain ballot access, you can face hefty legal fees.

For decades, people have been demanding lower barriers to entry on a ballot. In 1997, legal scholar Richard L. Hasen published an article titled, 'Entrenching the Duopoly: Why the Supreme Court Should Not Allow the States to Protect the Democrats and Republicans from Political Competition'. In 2010, Oliver Hall, founder of the Center for Competitive Democracy, wrote, 'Death by a Thousand Signatures: The Rise of Restrictive Ballot Access Laws and the Decline of Electoral Competition in the United States'. But the problems remain in place.

Getting a third party on the ballot won't just give voters more options; it will likely draw more people to the polls altogether. Non-voters are more likely to believe that, 'Traditional parties and politicians don't care about people like me'. This is especially true for non-voters with household incomes below $50,000, a Medill/NPR/Ipsos survey found.

Political division is threatening to tear apart the fabric of the United States. It's what the Founding Fathers feared. John Adams warned that the division of the republic into two great parties 'concerting measures in opposition to each other' was 'to be dreaded as the greatest political evil, under our Constitution'.

It's time to end the idea that there are only two options. Around the country, millions of people like me are willing to fight for a role in government outside of the duopoly. By launching campaigns for state and local offices, we make that a much stronger possibility".