Yesterday, I said that since 1950, the U.S. Congress has been totally dominated by the Republican and Democratic parties. If you're among those who believe that as long as two parties are contesting, diversity is served, you might be surprised that very often, even the D's and R's do not compete with each other.

As reported by Ballot Access News: This year, either the Democrats or Republicans failed to nominate anyone for the legislature in 38.7% of all legislative races. This is typical; in 2002, there was no Democrat-Republican contest in 36.9% of the races; in 2000, 40.6%; 1998, 41.1%; 1996, 32.7%; 1994, 35.8%; 1992, 32.8%

There are several reasons why so many seats are uncontested, such as the cost of running a contested campaign between two big parties. Another reason is that state legislatures redefine (gerrymander) legislative districts in an attempt to make them uncontestable... to rig the borders so that, where possible, a district can be overwhelmingly Republican or Democrat. Another reason is that some states have made ballot access difficult... to keep out other parties... to the point that they have made it difficult for themselves too, and just end up conceding seats to their opponent. Is that your idea of an election?

Once in, it's easy to stay in

In 2002, only eight representatives running for re- election in the U.S. House failed to regain their seats. And a fifth of House incumbents didn't even have any major-party opposition. The average winner got more than 70 percent of the vote.

According to the ABC News Political Unit, of the 435 House seats being contested in the 2004 election, no more than 49 are regarded as competitive.

Fox News reported that "heavily-favored incumbents pulled off a nation-wide sweep, emerging mostly victorious even in the handful of races that were truly competitive."

Where is the competition?

If we look to other nations, we see a completely different picture... a picture that should make Americans mad as hell. I've prepared a long list of other nations, each with a number after it. That number is not the number of political parties in elections... it's the number of parties who have members in their legislature.

I found one other nation with only 2 parties represented in their legislature - Monaco. Monaco is the smallest nation with a legislature, with a population of about 32,000. Even tiny Liechtenstein (smaller than Wash., D.C.) has 3 parties with legislators in office.

We are the 4th largest nation on earth, perhaps the most advanced and powerful, with the most diverse populace, yet we find our political representation limited to only 2 parties. Why? It certainly is not because we are all of 2 viewpoints while the rest of the world is confused.

The answer is simple: We have a "plurality" system... a winner-take-all election system, while most other nations have some form of proportional representation. In most countries, if a party gets 10% of the votes, they will get 10% of the legislative seats. The views of citizens voting for that party's candidates will be represented, in proportion to their numbers.

Not in America

It's a supreme irony that in the nation that originally placed individual rights in a position of supreme importance, and sought to protect minority opinion from dominance by majorities, that we should find ourselves with the most restrictive electoral system among all "free" nations.

We are politically dominated by two large parties that have gradually written all the rules in their favor. If those two parties were corporations, they would be called a cartel, and would be forcibly broken by law. We're stuck with an election system that has many disadvantages:

1. Minorities are not represented effectively
2. Most voters feel cheated; their choices won nothing.
3. Voters are often left with no real choice at all.
4. Voters feel like their votes are wasted, so many don't bother.
5. Political power becomes more and more concentrated.
6. National decisions enhance parties rather than the nation.
7. Political corruption tends to increase.
8. Even majority viewpoints can be ignored, for political reasons.
9. Political debate becomes trivialized... big issues are ignored.
10. Candidates become party hacks, not representatives of the people.

In recent history, we've watched as the two major parties have "redefined" themselves. The result is two parties that stand for almost nothing in particular... two parties who are almost impossible to differentiate between in terms of guiding principles.

Who is representing those who oppose our offensive wars?
Who is representing those who oppose the Patriot Act?
Who is representing those who oppose the War on Drugs?
Who is representing those who oppose deficit spending?
Who is representing those who oppose eminent domain abuse?
Who is representing those who favor more school choice?
Who is representing those who want Social Security fixed?
Who is representing those who question our massive prison population?

None of those issues will be effectively dealt with by either of the two major parties, or even discussed openly; to do so would threaten their own political power positions, and might make them vulnerable to the other party. With only two parties and no chance for new competition, they will continue to polarize us and collusively divide all the spoils of our nation between them.

Tomorrow: We're overdue for proportional representation