Jerry Kilgore’s cowardice and “play the game my way or I’m taking the ball home” attitude toward debating Russ Potts and Tim Kaine is nothing to be celebrated. But the presence of a more viable [than usual] third alternative does bring into question whether extra voices are beneficial to our country and state.

It’s easy to whine about the two-party system that has a firm grip on the body politic. It eliminates diversity! It quashes needed voices! Why, why, why in America do we have two parties that are the same?

The answer lies in the very nature of our political system. Yes, the system. Because of the fact that the winner takes all in our electoral system, third voices are pointless because casting a vote for a third party weakens the a like-minded faction, handing victory to the opposition. Since there is no leeway or outlet for a second-place voice in a system like ours, voting for a third party hurts your cause.

The tendency of winner-take-all systems of turning to a monolithic two-party system was outlined by French political scientist Maurice Duverger, in a principle named Duveger’s Law.

Allow me to explain.

Let’s say there was an election, and if people were asked their absolute first preference and we got…

Really Liberal 4%
Liberal 9%
Squishy Liberal 38%
Conservative 40%
Super Conservative 9%

Or, arbitrarily, we got, in composite:
Liberals 51%
Conservative 49%

So the majority of people voted for the Liberals, but since this is a first-past-the-post system, The Conservative party won with 40% over the Squishy Liberals, even though the majority of the people voted for a liberal party.

In short, the Liberals were hurt by the fact that their vote was split. The Liberals no longer want the Really Liberals and the Liberals around to hurt the Squishy Liberals, because it would be prefereable that the Squishy Liberals win over the Conservatives.

In a proportional representation system, this would not matter. The multiparty Liberal coalition will end up edging out the Conservative coalition. But since there is no room for coalitions in a winner-take-all system with no proportional representation (the weaker parties cannot win a district), these distinct voices are eliminated in a madcap rush to the center to try to satisfy as many as possible.

The advantage in this is that it creates a stable government that eliminates minor voices and satisfies all.

The disadvantage in this is that it creates a stable government that eliminates minor voices and satisfies all.

The enemy of progress is the status quo, and there is no impetus to change unless a minor voice (the non-centrists) gives it. Centrists moderate, but if left without something to temper, the politics will stagnate into bland, spineless blather.

This is where Russ Potts comes in. He is injecting an extra voice into this year’s race that will ultimately be smothered, because he will inevitably take away votes from a candidate, artificially handing the election, if his effect on one is big enough, to the other.

This is where the Democrats come in. As the Republican Party moves to the right, our system cannot accomodate a third party for an alternative. The Democratic Party must grow a spine. 60% of Independents feel that Dems are being too soft. Too soft!Unless a massive change happens and IRV or proportional systems are instituted to allow for a diversity of voices, Duverger’s law intones that the Democrats must be the mirror of the Republican’s rabid conservatism. In fact, it may be inevitable.

If the Democrats are not a viable alternative, and Duverger’s Law prevents third parties from having a serious impact, the moderates and the liberals both will leave it to wither.

When forced to pick a winner and loser in a zero-sum game, two parties will develop. They will either run to the center and become each other, or run to the fringes. When one runs, the other must, or risk irrelevance and an effective dominant-party system.