- Published on
Does America Need a Third Party Andrew Yang vs. Daniel DiSalvo
Introduction
In a debate hosted by Open to Debate, former presidential candidate and founder of the Forward Party, Andrew Yang, and Daniel DiSalvo, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and political science professor at City College of New York, discuss the pressing question: Does America need a third party?
Yang argues in favor of establishing a third party in the U.S., stating that the current two-party system, which he describes as a "duopoly," results in numerous societal issues such as gridlock, polarization, corruption, and declining voter engagement. He asserts that around 65% of Americans yearn for a political alternative and that the existing duopoly fosters stagnation in solving critical issues, from climate change to education. According to Yang, this system even poses risks of authoritarianism, as power dynamics concentrate within just two dominant parties.
Conversely, DiSalvo counters that America does not need a third party, emphasizing that the existing two-party system has demonstrated flexibility over time, allowing for substantial change within both Democratic and Republican parties. He argues that third parties often act merely as spoilers, siphoning votes from major parties and failing to secure significant electoral success, especially on the presidential level.
Yang highlights a significant disconnect between what the public desires and what the current political system delivers, pointing out that incumbents have a 94% re-election rate, which discourages accountability and responsiveness. He advocates for reforms such as ranked-choice voting and increased representation that could empower third parties.
In response, DiSalvo maintains that while third parties can flourish at state and local levels, they generally struggle in presidential elections due to systemic barriers. He believes that the two-party system has advantages, including the ability to foster majority rule in elections compared to multi-party systems, which often lead to fragmentation and instability.
Throughout the discussion, the two delve into the need for electoral reform while underscoring their differing views on what that reform should entail. Yang envisions a political landscape with multiple viable parties, while DiSalvo defends the efficacy of the current system as it stands.
As the debate concludes, both Yang and DiSalvo emphasize the importance of ensuring governance that reflects the people's wishes, but they part ways with contrasting visions of how that can best be achieved in a rapidly changing political environment.
Keywords
- Third party
- Duopoly
- Andrew Yang
- Daniel DiSalvo
- Polarization
- Electoral reform
- Ranked-choice voting
- Incumbency
- Governance
- Authoritarianism
FAQ
Q: What is the main argument for having a third party in the U.S.?
A: Andrew Yang argues that a third party is necessary to address the limitations and failures of the current two-party system, which he believes leads to gridlock, polarization, and voter apathy.
Q: What is the main argument against having a third party in the U.S.?
A: Daniel DiSalvo contends that the two-party system allows for stability and significant change within each party, and that third parties typically serve as spoilers rather than viable alternatives.
Q: What reform does Andrew Yang advocate for?
A: Yang advocates for ranked-choice voting and other electoral reforms that could enhance representation and allow for a more diverse political landscape.
Q: What are the criticisms of third parties mentioned in the debate?
A: DiSalvo criticizes third parties as often being ineffective in presidential elections, as they tend to siphon votes from the major parties and do not have a clear impact on governance.
Q: How does public opinion reflect the need for a third party?
A: Surveys show that around 65% of Americans are dissatisfied with the two-party system and desire an alternative political option, according to Yang.