It is often noted that a very low percentage of the electorate vote in any given election. In last year’s presidential election, despite the anticipated surge in voting because of the overwhelming ethnic issue, (and the inclusion of the minor party votes,) less than ⅔ of eligible voters actually voted in last year’s presidential election.  What kept the other third from voting?

The media tend to attribute this to a large number of citizens being uninterested in politics.  I find this implausible.  The Americans I have met, throughout the nation, have been very opinionated politically, and it is difficult to think of so many of them evading a chance to voice those opinions if given a chance.  Their response to polls and in letters to the media indicate the same propensity.

An alternative explanation appears more likely.   (In other words, that the dominant parties are only able to interest less than ⅔  of the electorate to vote at all.)  When we examine the questions asked in polls and the opinions offered in letters to the media, we find that the goals and policies which popular opinion most demand come in two distinct categories.

One set involves issues in which the public is fairly equally divided.   Consider abortion and arms control and, at present, racial questions.  The two parties take opposite sides in a given jurisdiction and advertise their chosen position extensively.   Meanwhile the public is vociferous in voicing their opinion.  The value of individual votes in helping to determine the outcome is clear.

However there are other issues in which neither party expresses much involvement.  These are the very ones which are least openly included in party programs, at least at election time.  They are precisely those goals which are demanded by 60 to 90% of the citizens in polls.  Examples are the desire to remove money from politics, to sanction political and financial corruption, more equal taxation of the wealthy.  In other words, the controllers of the political parties do not present information on how they might deal with issues on which the reported opinions of the electorate are most known to differ from their own.  And the public, not being completely inattentive, realizes their vote is not going to register in these cases.

In this country we have a two-party system.  This does not mean merely that there happen to exist only two national parties at a given time, but that no more than two viable parties are allowed to exist.  What prevents more becoming viable is, of course, the active interests of the already existing two. A clear example is the stranglehold of the two parties over the presidential debates.

“The LWV {League of Women Voters} sponsored the United States presidential debates in 1976, 1980 and 1984. On October 2, 1988, the LWV's 14 trustees voted unanimously to pull out of the debates, and on October 3 they issued a press release condemning the demands of the major candidates' campaigns. LWV President Nancy Neuman said that the debate format would "perpetrate a fraud on the American voter" and that the organization did not intend to "become an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public." All presidential debates since 1988 have been sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates, a bipartisan organization run by the two major parties.” [source]

“[A] bipartisan organization run by the two major parties.” Can you envisage a setup more guaranteeing that no third party would ever get the least successful advantage in the country?

There are also grandfather causes by which a party can only offer candidates in an election if it has achieved more than a certain level of votes in a past election . . . a level set by the two established parties.  A catch-22, that sort of thing.

There are a range of important issues on which the U. S. public, in opinion polls as well as in public media and daily conversations, hold strong opinions (60, 70, 80%) but which are never presented to them as voting alternatives at all.  Examples range from Medicare for All, through Human Rights to employment, education, social security, adequate food, water, and housing, child care and parental leave, to the declaration of war.  (This last issue is a special case, as popular support ranges from very low to very high, depending on whether the government has already started hostilities.)

If this is correct, then the silent third of the potential voting public, rather than being apathetic, might well on the contrary have opinions not agreeing with those of either party.  If neither party expresses interest in those goals or policies, that portion might well sit out elections, rather than vote for a less desirable alternative than either available party will offer.  In other words, up to one third of the electorate are deprived of a meaningful vote.  Moreover, they are deprived of any party openly standing for goals which they would be glad to support.

So which is true of our society here in the United States 1) That, despite the polls and observation, close to half the registered population is not of strong enough opinion to vote at all, even in presidential elections or 2) that that large population would vote for these goals if there were a party offering them, as there is in all other advanced nations?

It seems more probable that a party plausibly combining these elements into a single platform would have an appeal raising it to a level at least comparable to that of the two existing major parties.  It also might well capture adherents from the Democratic Party as well as existing “minor” parties.   Certainly, it would expedite the movement of the political scene as a whole in a progressive direction.

The clearest answer would require an actual political party freed of the arbitrary restrictions laid upon it by the Democratic and Republican parties.  Those parties will continue to do all they can to keep those restrictions in place, thus depriving over one third of the electorate with the platforms they would be willing to vote for, a very undemocratic stance.

In short, I postulate that, given a chance, a viable political party might be raised quickly with a core of the electorate which the two dominant Parties have prevented from forming.  It would be progressive, and should either parallel or include the major portion of the current Democratic Party, as well as of the hitherto alienated non-voters.  If it rapidly accumulates wins in local and state primaries, success in federal elections can be hoped for.  Depending on where it plateaus, the texture of the whole political system can be modified.

The United States might even drop its more autocratic and militaristic attitudes towards the non-Anglo world and join the large number of would-be progressive nations which would welcome its cooperation.

Obviously I myself hope so.

Finally, I can point out that just such a party has actually been formed, and should be ready to fully participate in elections in 2022 and 2024.

https://peoplesparty.org/events/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movment_for_a_People%27s_Party

Note: I myself have no personal connection with MPP except for deep respect.

Do check it out.