Often during the last election I would talk to moderates or swing voters who were anything about moderate in the passion of their views or swinging back and forth on the issues. I would talk to young women who were strongly pro-choice and worried about judicial nominees, but trusted Bush on national security. People opposed to the GOP's intolerance but opposed to even the partial rolling back of the tax cuts favored by Kerry.
Moderates, swing voters, whatever they are called, are not wishy-washy types. They hold strong opinions, but their opinions are split in two, agreeing sometimes with Republicans and sometimes with Democrats. Add to this the people who honestly would like to see Cobb, Badnarik, Nader, or Peroutka as President. But their candidate has no chance at winning, and even if they vote for the third party candidate out of principle it's unlikely that anyone will notice. Many ended up voting for one of the major candidates out of fear of seeing 'the other guy' win, or fear of 'wasting their vote.'
The system is designed to discourage people from being enthusiastic. No wonder people aren't voting.
Traditionally the progressive left has called for IRV and other reforms to support minor parties and turn America into a multi-party state similar to France. But call me cynical, or perhaps I'm just realistic. The two major parties have a vested interest in making sure that this sort of thing doesn't get off the ground. And for a truly multi-party system to work in America you'd need major changes to the Senate, the election of the President, and more.
We live in a federal republic that for better or for worse tends to force us into a two party system. What are we to do?
The other option is to make races focus on less.
Take the culture war. Please, take it away. We all know by now that it's used to get people to vote against their economic self-interest. What if the Democratic Party stood up and started to question the validity of the culture war as a national issue. Dean in the primary talked about gun control as a local issue. Too often liberals seem to put forward their own extreme social agenda in opposition to the conservative's extreme social agenda, and ignoring the middle ground of letting the states decide. Blue America can stay blue, and in doing so perhaps we reassure some of Purple and Red America and pick up some support.
I think it would be a big risk, and it would have to be presented in the right way. Perhaps it would be seen as ducking the issue. The candidate would have to work hard to explain that their position is founded on the Constitution, the 10th Amendment, and the principles of our federal government. While some extreme social conservatives may never give up the fight, couldn't this help us in trying to bring together a more progressive coalition?
Think of what this would do for the two national parties as a whole, if each was defined primarily by their economic positions. At the state level it's very likely that the two parties would have socially liberal and socially conservative wings. Today each party is either socially conservative or socially liberal, and so one dominates the South and the other the North, for the most part. Sectionalism, regionalism, and all of the division that makes us the Disunited States of America. But in this scenario, each party has room for social liberals and social conservatives because they are united by their shared national agenda of economic policy and foreign policy. The nation would, ideally, be brought together, with national parties, not sectional ones.
It's something to think about.