Nonpartisanship needed: Our two-party system is failing in elections, redistricting, and governance

Bipartisan compromise is proving as elusive as ever these days, as illustrated by stubborn standoffs on state, county and town levels over the once-every-10-years redrawing of election district lines. For those who care about our democratic institutions, this is a discouraging sight.

First, a New York State commission created in the name of “independent” redistricting by a constitutional amendment eight years ago predictably deadlocked along its partisan lines. This sent the congressional, State Senate and, ultimately, Assembly lines into court for rewrites that confounded Albany’s majority Democrats.

Since then the same deadlock dynamic has played out in other New York forums. The bipartisan Suffolk County commission is stymied along partisan lines over two rival maps — which at least puts its progress ahead of Nassau County’s panel, which hasn’t really reached the drawing board yet.

In Brookhaven, all three proposed new town board maps were voted down by a partisan-balanced redistricting committee. Any map they agree on would go to the town board, which must approve a final map by Dec. 15. The road to new lines there remains hazy. The town council of North Hempstead’s Democratic majority pushed through its preferred district map despite Republican objections and a new GOP supervisor.

Nonpartisan is not the same as bipartisan. Sometimes, it's the opposite.

HARMFUL POWER PLAYS

The perpetual power scrum between the major parties, which deepened during the last presidential administration, mars governance in other ways. State and local election boards are split evenly between Republicans and Democrats no matter which way the voters of those jurisdictions tend to tilt.

The theory is that one side offsets and keeps watch over the power of the other. But the parties pick staffers based on patronage, not professionalism. That's a big weakness at a time when our elections system must hold its own against fake charges of rigged results.

In the U.S. Senate, despite a razor-thin Democratic majority, key initiatives require 60 of 100 votes, which empowers the GOP minority these days to block legislation. If the majority changes this year, the same kind of obstruction should be expected from Democrats. Under these circumstances, it’s impressive that a pared-down infrastructure agreement was reached and approved this year.

Given the combined but clashing duopoly power of the major parties, and widening chasms between so-called blue and red states, you almost can’t call this a two-party “system.” Checks and balances were developed to ensure that no single branch of government — executive, legislative or judiciary — would become too powerful.

This means that separations and limitations are about governance itself — not the parties that run and influence elections. James Madison warned in the Federalist Papers against factions. There is no mention of political parties in the U.S. Constitution, let alone how many there should be. And, there were times when alternative third parties exercised crucial clout around the nation, meaning in theory that they could develop again, perhaps forming new and original coalitions.

According to current enrollment figures, New York has 6.4 million Democrats, 2.8 million Republicans, and a new emerging group: 2.9 million “blanks” who are unaffiliated.

ONLY BINARY CHOICES

Despite voter frustration with the either/or, them-or-us dynamic, ballot choices have grown ever more binary in recent years even as the number of New York voters unaffiliated with a national party has grown into a big plurality.

For the first time since 1946, New Yorkers have only two choices for governor in November — incumbent Kathy Hochul or challenger Lee Zeldin. As the Democrat, Hochul appears on the Working Families Party line, and as the Republican, Zeldin has the Conservative line. Other third parties such as the Libertarians and Greens — like Right to Lifers and Liberals in the old days — have vanished from the ballot faced with tougher eligibility requirements carried out under Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo.

People who want a choice, if only to shout a protest at the status quo, find this frustrating and may consider it a reason not to vote at a time when general turnout falls far short of healthy.

Nonpartisan primaries like those of other states could help shake things up here. In California and Washington, all voters regardless of party affiliation decide which two candidates advance from the primary to the general election. It seems to cut the incentive for extremism by which the most rigid right-wing Republican or left-wing Democrat emerges from the partisan primary pack, then faces a similar candidate of the other party.

In Alaska, the four top vote-getters in the nonpartisan primary face off in all general elections. Moderate GOP incumbents who distanced themselves from Donald Trump recently survived the first hurdle while many like-minded Republicans in states with conventional primaries did not.

By making loyalty to party leadership less of a test for candidates, perhaps the realities of governing will get more consideration. “Law-and-order” Democrats and “pro-choice” Republicans might not suddenly become common again — but a nonpartisan step is worth a try just to break divisive political habits.

Otherwise, partisan alienation will continue to feed the degraded public discourse and conflicted governance we see now. A new era of good-government reform is needed without regard to which "side" benefits.