Within our Constitution, is there specific language that either
created, supports and nonetheless perpeptuates our current,
predominant two-party system? If there isn't, how best can a third
party (or independent party) lay claim to a Constitutional right to be
equally represented in election law and eventual legislative
activities?

Hi,

The first part of your question is easy: There is no language in the 
U.S. Constitution that mentions, much less creates, political parties.

You can read the Constitution here:

U.S. Constitution
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html

But is there anything that perpetuates a two-party system? The answer
to that is a resounding yes: the Electoral College.

The Electoral College makes it very difficult for a third party to win
a presidential election.  Although it is possible to win without
earning a majority of the popular votes (several have in my lifetime,
and the current president didn't even win a plurality), a victory
requires a party to have widespread support throughout the country in
order to win the presidency.

This thesis is supported by the following article:

Third Parties Can't Win in a Two-Party System
"Unfortunately, those supporting the Reform Party and other third
party efforts are wasting their time if their goal actually is to
elect a president. That fact is basically guaranteed by the
Constitution of the United States. In particular, article 2, section 3
demands that the president receive an absolute majority in the
Electoral College in order to take office. In the event that no
candidate achieves a majority, the election is decided in the House of
Representatives."
http://www.ncpa.org/oped/bartlett/jul2899.html

Along the same line, the Electoral College has the effect of
discouraging third-party votes within individual states.  Suppose I
live in California, for example.  I know my state's electoral votes
are going to go for a Republican or Democrat, no matter what, so it
seems like something of a waste to vote Libertarian or Green or
whatever.  Even if one of those minor parties were to get 10 percent
of the vote nationwide, it would probably end up with no electoral
votes.

It isn't the same in a parliamentary system.  Look at our neighbor to
the north, for example, where the separatist Parti Québécois is able
to exercise considerable influence even though it is not a force at
all in most of the country.  But by gathering strong support in one
region, it picks up enough parliamentary seats to sometimes tip the
balance of power.  It may not be able to select its own prime
minister, but it can make sure that it effectively has veto power over
who does become the national leader.  Even a small political party can
have influence in a close parliamentary election, so it is seldom a
wasted vote to side with the minority.  That scenario frequently plays
out in many European countries.

Here are some articles from various political viewpoints that also
indicate how the Electoral College reinforces the two-party system:

The Electoral College
http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/case/3pt/electoral.html

Electoral College: Cornerstone of Two-Party Monopoly
http://news.beograd.com/english/articles_and_opinion/djurdjevic/000905_electoral_college_cornerstone_of_two_party_monopoly.html

Electoral College
http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/ea/side/elecollg.html

So what are third parties to do?

A start would be by gradually building a nationwide base of support.
Since the Electoral College applies only to the presidency, once
candidates get on the ballot (more about that soon), there aren't any
constitutional barriers to third parties or independents winning
elections. In fact, there are a handful of independent or third-party
governors and members of Congress who have bucked the two-party
system.

One step that independents and third-party candidates need to take in
some states is to make sure they get on the ballot. Although it is
very easy in some states to get on the ballot as a non-major-party
person, in some states it is a difficult-to-surmount challenge.  You
can read more about ballot-access issues at the following site:

Ballot Access News
http://www.ballot-access.org/

There are also challenges facing third parties in terms of raising
money and getting recognition.  But that's one of those
chicken-and-egg situations. When the independents and third parties
gain support, they gain visibility, but it's hard to gain support
without visibility.

It's a tough challenge.  Not only does the two-party system
practically limit us to two parties, it also tends to push both
parties toward a political center.  Certainly, there are differences
between the parties, but there are also Republicans that sound like
Democrats and vice versa. It's difficult for alternative viewpoints to
even get in the debate (sometimes literally).

Despite the challenges, third parties are making some advances. Both
the Libertarian and Green parties are running candidates throughout
much of the country now, and in some states they have gained enough
support to be recognized as "major" parties (which means they can get
on the ballot more or less automatically).  As the Ballot Access News
indicates, a scaterring of third-party candidates also have been
elected to local office.  I don't expect either of those parties to
become a major force soon, but if they continue their efforts they at
least could earn enough votes that they will become part of the
national debate.  If that happens, our political system will be richer
for it.

Best wishes,

mvguy




Google search terms:
"electoral college" "two-party system"
://www.google.com/search?q=%22electoral+college%22+%22two-party+system%22

U.S. Constitution
://www.google.com/search?num=25&hl=es&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&q=U.S.+Constitution

"third parties" "ballot access"
://www.google.com/search?num=25&hl=es&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&q=%22third+parties%22+%22ballot+access%22

Wow! This is a wonderful system.

Contrary to another comment, there is nothing in the actual Electoral
College which perpetuates a two-party system. It is rather the way in
which the states choose to allocate their electoral votes which makes
it nearly impossible for a viable third party to exist.

The number of electoral votes a state has is determined by how many
Congressional districts it has; there is one electoral vote per
district, then they are given two more to represent the two Senators
for each state. No state has fewer than three electoral votes. Most
states award their electoral votes on the basis of a "winner take all"
scenario, so whoever gets a majority of the votes statewide gets all
the electoral votes for that state.  This does not take into account
the fact that it is possible for one candidate to win a majority in
all of the Congressional districts in the state except the largest one
and then lose all the electoral votes because his opponent carried
that largest district while keeping the race close in all others.

A much more equitable system for awarding electoral votes would be
that whoever garners the majority of votes in any given Congressional
district would win the electoral vote for that district, and whoever
has the largest total statewide then would get the two "wild card"
Senatorial votes. In this fashion the views of each district would be
represented as well as the state as a whole. In my home state of
Arkansas it would then be possible for a presidential candidate to win
only the district which contains the capital city of Little Rock for
one vote, and if the race in other districts were close enough he
could also win the majority statewide for three votes, which would
result in an electoral tie since the other guy would have won the
other three districts.

A review of the district by district vote totals reveals that there
would have been no dispute over Florida, as Al Gore garnered the most
votes in a handy majority of congressional districts nationwide, even
though George Bush won more statewide counts.  As for Ralph Nader, it
is a certainty that he would have gained at least a few (maybe as many
as 20) electoral votes under this system, which should serve to
encourage third party activists to lobby their states to adopt this
system for awarding electoral votes.  If we go back to the 1992
election, Ross Perot's twenty percent showing would certainly have
garnered enough electoral votes to have established his Reform party
as a viable third party.

The main impediment to establishing a credible nationwide third party
is the fact that the Democrats and Republicans are the ones who get to
write the rules on how a party gets on the ballot in each state, and
they have few incentives to encourage any more competition than they
already face with just two parties.  Chances are that any real chance
of a third party coming into existence would have to come from federal
legislation, which would probably require a Constitutional amendment
that would never make it through a majority of the state legislatures.
For this reason it is a pretty safe bet that we are stuck with the
two-party system for the foreseeable future.