logo
What it would take to escape the two-party system

What it would take to escape the two-party system

Vox20-07-2025
Earlier this month, Elon Musk said he wanted to form a new political party. He'd been teasing the idea ever since clashing with President Donald Trump over his 'big, beautiful bill,' which Musk accused of exploding the deficit. In June, Musk ran a poll on X asking users whether it was 'time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle?' More than 5 million people responded, and 80 percent voted yes. Then, on July 5, Musk announced he was forming the American Party in hopes of giving voters their 'back [their] freedom.'
Those who follow Musk closely, like Bloomberg Businessweek national correspondent Joshua Green, have said Musk's latest project is in line with his pursuit of political power and attention.
'I think he thought he'd essentially bought that by backing Donald Trump to the tune of $300 million in the last election,' Green said previously on Today, Explained. 'And Trump turned on him, ousted him, took away his EV tax credits, didn't cut the deficit, trashed him on social media. And now I think Elon is humiliated and looking for a way to respond and hit back.'
Trump has called Musk's third-party proposal 'ridiculous.' And the billionaire appeared to have moved from his third obsession by mid-July — at least on X — posting instead about Europe's fertility rate and running damage control for the antisemitic rants of his AI platform Grok.
But regardless of whether he follows through on the 'America Party,' Musk appears to have hit a chord with an American electorate disillusioned by the two-party system.
On Today, Explained, co-host Noel King dove into voters' desires, the history of third parties, and possible solutions to the two-party stranglehold with Lee Drutman, senior fellow at the New America think tank and author of Breaking the Two Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America.
Below is an excerpt of their conversation, edited for length and clarity. There's much more in the full episode, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Pandora, and Spotify.
You are not a big fan of the two-party system.
You know, I think it's outlived its usefulness. I think America is a pretty big, diverse country these days, you may have noticed. And to fit everybody into just two parties seems like kind of insanity, and it's clearly not working. Also, it has divided this country into two teams — the red and the blue team — that have learned to absolutely hate each other. It's created these artificial divisions around this zero-sum, winner-take-all electoral politics that is just really breaking down the foundations of democracy in this country. So, I think there was a time when it worked reasonably well for certain reasons, but that time is in the past.
You will know that Elon Musk agrees with you. He says he wants to start a third party. He ran one of his polls [on X], and the question was: 'Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle?' I'm looking at that poll now. Eighty percent of people said yes, 20 percent said no. How does that match up with reality in the US?
Well, there are two parts to that question. One is: How many people want a third party? And then two is: How many people want that party to be somewhere in the middle?
Now, the first part: How many people want a third party? That 80 percent is a little bit high. There might be some selection bias there, but it is close to polls that I've seen. Generally, about 60 to 70 percent of Americans say there ought to be more than two parties when polled. So, overwhelmingly, Americans say they want more than two parties.
Now, is the party that they want a party in the center? That's less clear. I think people's perception of the political center depends on themselves. [Most] people think that they're more reasonable and they're more moderate. But in reality, when you look at the viewpoints of the American electorate, as I've done repeatedly, you see that the support for a genuine center party is limited to maybe 10 to 15 percent. But there is a lot of interest in parties that are maybe not as traditional.
Third-party candidates do run for office all the time in the United States, they very rarely win. If so many voters want more options, why don't we have more people in elected office from third parties?
Here you're hitting on the core problem, which is that we have a single-winner system of elections. So in a single-winner election, third parties become spoilers and wasted votes, because one of the two major parties is going to win every election. So, voting for a third party is just basically a protest vote, or maybe it could spoil the election. And as a result, most people don't want to do that because they think, well, I want to vote for somebody who at least has a chance of winning. And, more importantly, people who have ambition in politics say, well, I'm not going to waste my time with one of these fringe parties. I want to actually win. So you get minor parties that are mostly cranks and weirdos and people say, well, I'd like to vote for another party, but not that third party.
What's the recent history of third-party candidates? Serious third-party candidates at a national level? I have a vague memory of Ross Perot, but I couldn't give you many details. It was the nineties. How serious have third-party candidates been over time?
Well, Ross Perot is the most recent third-party candidate to actually get a pretty decent share of the electorate. He got almost 20 percent of the electorate, although he didn't win a single state. A lot of people remember Ralph Nader in 2000, who only got about 3 percent of the vote, but it was a very well placed 3 percent because his votes were more than the difference between Bush and Gore in Florida and a few other states.
Before that, you had George Wallace running in 1968 on the American Independent Party as sort of a 'preserve segregation' platform. And then 1912, you have Teddy Roosevelt running as a Bull Moose third-party candidate. [He] was the most successful third-party candidate. Of course, he had already been president. So you've periodically had third-party challenges at a presidential level. At a House and Senate level, you have a few people who run as independents. But people tend to go right for the presidency because that creates a level of visibility if you're trying to build a party.
If one thinks that the two-party system is a problem, let's talk about solutions. You advocate for something called proportional representation. Explain what that is and why you think it might be a solution here.
Well, proportional representation is the most common system of voting, and it basically, at its simplest level, it means that parties get shares of seats in proportion to what percent of the vote they get. So if a party gets 30 percent of the vote, it gets 30 percent of the seats in the legislature. If it gets 10 percent, it gets 10 percent. Now, there are varieties of proportional representation that we could spend an hour going in the weeds.
Tell me the one you like the best. What would work in the US?
What I think would work in the US is probably the most commonly used version, which is called open list proportional representation with multi-member districts — which is this idea that rather than having a single district with a single representative, you have a single district with five representatives. The district is larger, and then the parties put forward lists of candidates. You choose the candidate from the party that you like, all the votes for each party get tallied up, and then the seats get allocated in proportion. So if a party gets 40 percent of the votes in that five member district, its top two candidates go to represent the district. If a party gets 20 percent, its top candidate [goes]. So, in theory, you could have five parties representing the same district.
'We've never had this level of dissatisfaction with the two-party system as far back as we've seen polling.'
We talk a lot about gerrymandering as a huge problem, and it is. But [if] you move to five member proportional districts, gerrymandering becomes irrelevant. It doesn't matter because votes are going to be allocated proportionally no matter what. So, everybody gets to cast a meaningful vote because every seat matters. Every seat is competitive. Every vote matters. Electoral reform is the most powerful tool we have.
So, at the end of the day, has Elon Musk done something admirable here [by] making this a topic of conversation in a kind of real way?
Yeah. So, I think by raising the issue of the need for a third party, it certainly opens up a conversation about what it would take. I'm not sure Elon's approach is going to be successful. On the other hand, if he's strategic and wants to spoil a few races that will determine control of the House and the Senate by running a spoiler candidate, then, historically, that's actually what has led to a wider conversation about electoral reform. And that's one of the reasons that a lot of countries moved to electoral reform.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Smiling billionaire spruiks AI as CEO fires 150 workers over video in scary digital revolution
Smiling billionaire spruiks AI as CEO fires 150 workers over video in scary digital revolution

Yahoo

time23 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Smiling billionaire spruiks AI as CEO fires 150 workers over video in scary digital revolution

Australian tech company Atlassian has cut 150 staff members in a pre-recorded video message delivered by co-founder and CEO Mike Cannon-Brookes early this morning. Customer service and support roles will be impacted in the cuts, with some of their tasks now set to be done by artificial intelligence (AI). The startling video message came hours before co-founder and billionaire Scott Farquhar heralded Australia's AI revolution in an Australian Press Club address. The former co-CEO said Australia needs to let go of "jobs from the past" and said those impacted by shifts can lean on the nations "very strong social safety net". The duo founded the software company Atlassian in 2002 and have been labelled Australia's first tech billionaires. RELATED Commonwealth Bank axes Aussie jobs as 'human cost' of AI revolution exposed Centrelink pension warning for 4.3 million Aussies facing super nightmare Australia's 'ancient enemy' returns sparking major Centrelink warning Cannon-Brookes sent the video to impacted staff on Wednesday morning, with the title 'Restructuring the CSS Team: A Difficult Decision for Our Future'. Employees weren't told about their jobs before the announcement and reportedly had to wait 15 minutes to find out their fate over email before their laptops were immediately blocked. Atlassian declined to comment when approached by Yahoo Finance but confirmed it had made the 'hard decision' to let a small cohort of customer service and support employees go. The company did not reveal where the workers were based. It's understood the decision was made following improvements to customer experience across the company's platform and tools, which meant there was a significant reduction in support needs. It has disputed the claim that the jobs will be 'replaced by AI'. According to The Australian, Cannon-Brookes told affected staff the company's customer service team had become a victim of the business's broader success. Larger clients had been moved off the older software platform and into the cloud, reducing the volume of complex support tasks required. He noted future complaints would more likely be treated in part with AI. Staff members are expected to receive six months pay. It comes as Commonwealth Bank revealed it would be axing 45 roles in its customer call centres, citing AI as the reason behind the cuts. The bank introduced a new chatbot system to answer customer inquiries in June and said it had reduced the volume of calls by 2,000 a week. 'I worry about jobs of the past': Atlassian co-founder spruiks AI The lay-offs came the same day as former co-CEO and co-founder Scott Farquhar spruiked the benefits of AI to the National Press Club. He expressed concerns about not finding a way to evolve with new technologies and said Australians can lean on government support while "re-skilling". "I do worry if, as a nation, we want to stick to and have jobs of the past," Farquhar said on Wednesday. "That is not a good plan for us." The billionaire co-founder warned: "There will be job changes across the industry as a result of this". 'In these times or any time we should be helping our employees to make the transition bracket at company level but also at a national level," he said. 'Particularly in Australia, I feel very privileged and blessed that we live in a nation that has a very strong social safety net and very strong skill and opportunities for our people to re-skill into new areas. "Every nation in the world will go through the same thing and compared to other nations and I think we're well placed for that.' Farquhar, who stepped down from his role last year, called for the government to enable the construction of more data centres in Australia and renewable energy to power them. He said Australia had an opportunity to become a major regional centre for AI infrastructure by housing data centres. Speaking on ABC Breakfast this morning, Farquhar also said every company should be embracing AI. 'Every person should be using AI daily for as many things as they can,' he said. 'Like any new technology, it will feel awkward to start with, but every business person, every business leader, every government leader and every bureaucrat should be using it.' Unions push for tougher regulation on use of AI Earlier this year, technology sector union Professionals Australia reported an influx of workers from the multi-billion dollar industry joining amid AI-fuelled "uncertainty" about their job security. Yahoo Finance have contacted Professionals Australia for comment. Following the announcement of dozens of Australians losing their job to AI automisation, the Finance Sector Union (FSU) said the use of new technology must be done in partnership with workers, not at their expense. 'There is a human cost to this. You can't just replace frontline jobs with a voice bot and expect the same service for customers," FSU national secretary Julia Angrisano said. The Australian Council of Trade Unions said it would use next month's Economic Reform Roundtable to call for a new set of mandatory enforceable agreements that would force employers to consult with staff before new AI technologies can be introduced into workplaces. Employers would be required to reach agreements around guarantees for job security, skills development and retraining, transparency over technology use, privacy and data collection and use protections. 'We can realise the potential productivity benefits of AI while protecting the Australian fair go in the AI age,' ACTU assistant secretary Joseph Mitchell said. 'But we can't wish away the major disruptions and social risks that the bad use of AI and other new tech poses, through massive job losses and the theft of creative and intellectual property by big tech companies.'

How to give your job applications a 'human touch' in the AI era
How to give your job applications a 'human touch' in the AI era

Yahoo

time23 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

How to give your job applications a 'human touch' in the AI era

There is no denying that using AI to craft your CV, cover letter or job application makes the process easier. But is it always an effective way to catch the attention of an employer? According to a new study, maybe not. AI is changing the way we apply for jobs and sparking fears about its impact, but one thing remains the same: employers still value the human touch. The 2025 AI and the Applicant report from Resume Now found that 78% of hiring managers say personalised details signal genuine interest and fit for a role. And, 62% say AI-generated resumes without customisation are far more likely to be rejected. At the same time, more recruiters are turning to AI to screen job candidates. A 2023 IBM survey of more than 8,500 global IT professionals found that 42% of companies were using AI to enhance their recruiting and HR processes. This technology often scans applications for keywords and phrases that match the job description, helping employers quickly filter through candidates. So, how can you make sure your application gets noticed by both the AI and the humans behind it? 'In every industry, including the most technical ones, hiring is still a human decision,' says Victoria McLean, CEO & founder of the global career consultancy City CV. 'I work with a lot of senior leaders and even in those data-heavy roles, the human touch is what clinches the offer. I wouldn't say it depends on the job you're applying for. Human-ness is always king.' Read more: 'I moved schools every six months. Now I run a thriving business network' When hiring managers are looking at your application, they're trying to picture you in the role. So, AI-generated jargon – which is often meaningless – isn't going to win you any favours. 'Recruiters are asking themselves: Can I trust this person with high-stakes work? Will they get along with the team? Do they care about what they do?' McLean adds. 'None of that is answered by credentials alone. It comes through the clarity of your narrative, the thought you've put into your choices, and the way you talk about impact.' Balance 'humanness' with AI needs Obi James, a leadership expert, recommends writing your CV, cover letter or application yourself, before using AI to optimise it. 'Allow space for your creative thinking and authentic tone to fuel how you write about your wins, values and achievements first,' he says. 'Then do a quick AI pass to check the right keywords and metrics are there, without swapping out your voice. Algorithms scan, humans feel. You want to connect with your recruiter, not just impress them with your keyword‑stuffed, AI‑polished writing.' Avoid generic phrasing McLean warns that AI doesn't – and cannot – understand you or the nuances of your abilities and achievements. 'If you must use AI, the key thing to avoid is overly generic phrasing,' she says. 'I speak to HR and recruiters all day every day, and they are fed up with seeing generic CVs that read the same - which they well and truly all do.' "It's important to avoid common lines such as: 'I'm a dynamic and results-driven individual', 'I thrive in fast-paced environments', 'I bring a proven track record of success'." 'They may seem harmless, but not to the recruiter who's read hundreds of applications that day,' McLean explains. 'To be totally honest, it reads as homogenised nonsense, and triggers rejection. Candidates need to be more deliberate with their language. Every sentence must carry weight and answer the question: Why do you deserve this specific job?' Check for errors AI may be getting more advanced but it isn't infallible. Using AI to craft any text risks introducing inaccuracies to your work. Read more: How to stay motivated during a long job hunt 'I've seen CVs where AI has filled in gaps or reworded achievements in a way that slightly distorts their career history or makes assumptions about their roles,' says James. 'That catches a lot of people out at the interview stage, so if you are using AI, you must fact-check.' Focus on clarity and motivation Technology may be used to scan your application, but it's the human who hires you – and they need to feel some sense of connection. 'Finding balance comes from understanding the mechanics of AI screening, then writing through that lens rather than for it,' says McLean. 'A CV that's been entirely reverse-engineered around keywords or job specs might perform technically well, but it often reads as flat and disconnected.' Instead, it's essential to focus on clarity, genuine motivation and a career story that makes sense. 'Be crystal clear on your value,' says McLean. 'What have you delivered, why does it matter, how have you gone about it? Once that's in place, then you can check it against what the algorithms might be scanning for, whether that's adding in relevant metrics, refining the structure or mirroring the language in the job description.' Read more: What the UK's NDA ban means for victims of workplace harassment Why the pressure to be liked at work is holding women back Five soft skills that can help you get hired or promoted at work

UN investigator says US sanctions over her criticism of Israel will seriously impact her life
UN investigator says US sanctions over her criticism of Israel will seriously impact her life

Boston Globe

time24 minutes ago

  • Boston Globe

UN investigator says US sanctions over her criticism of Israel will seriously impact her life

'It's very serious to be on the list of the people sanctioned by the U.S.,' Albanese told The Associated Press in Rome on Tuesday, adding that individuals sanctioned by the U.S. cannot have financial interactions or credit cards with any American bank. Advertisement When used in 'a political way,' she said the sanctions 'are harmful, dangerous.' 'My daughter is American. I've been living in the U.S. and I have some assets there. So of course, it's going to harm me,' Albanese said. 'What can I do? I did everything I did in good faith, and knowing that, my commitment to justice is more important than personal interests.' Advertisement The sanctions have not dissuaded Albanese from her work — or her viewpoints — and in July, she published a new report, focused on what she defines as 'Israel's genocidal economy' in Palestinian territories. 'There's an entire ecosystem that has allowed Israel's occupation to thrive. And then it has also morphed into an economy of genocide,' she said. In the conclusion of the report, Albanese calls for sanctions against Israel and prosecution of 'architects, executors and profiteers of this genocide.' Albanese noted a recent shift in perceptions in Europe and around the world following an outcry over images of emaciated children in Gaza and reports of dozens of hunger-related deaths after nearly 22 months of war. 'It's shocking,' she said. 'I don't think that there are words left to describe what's happening to the Palestinian people.' The war began on Oct. 7, 2023, when Hamas-led militants stormed into Israel and killed some 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and took 251 people captive. Israel's retaliatory campaign has killed over 60,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza's Health Ministry, which does not differentiate between combatants and civilians but says more than half the dead are women and children. Nearly 21 months into the conflict that displaced the vast majority of Gaza's 2.3 million people, the United Nations says hunger is rampant after a lengthy Israeli blockade on food entering the territory and medical care is extremely limited.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store