Direct Democracy Global Network: Creating Multi-Party Elections

November 4, 2026

For decades a large segment of US voters has been criticizing the US two-party system dominated and controlled by the two major parties, the Democratic and Republican parties, demanding third parties that give them more choices.

Reasons for their widespread opposition are described in a recent New York Times Opinion entitled "This Is Why So Many Voters Hate Both Parties" (Sept. 17, 2026).

But the two parties hold on to their "monopoly" of the system, pejoratively referred to as a "duopoly". They impose constraints making it difficult and often impossible for third parties to take root and compete with them in "free and fair elections".

One of the results is that the two major parties also monopolize campaign contributions, which they exploit to outmaneuver opposing candidates and parties. This leads to undemocratic party management and control that European sociologist Robert Michels describes as oligarchic, in his classic treatise entitled Iron Law of Oligarchy.

In the US and UK, this impediment weakening authentic democracy is aided and abetted by election laws, regulations, and rules referred to as "winner-take-all" elections, and "first past the post" methods, which enable candidates to be elected even if they did not win a majority of votes cast. Candidates can be declared the "winner" even if party candidates competing with them actually received more total votes than they did.

These patterns have long been criticized by numerous "good government" groups, but to no avail. They include:

FairVote: A leading electoral reform non-profit that argues winner-take-all single-member districts create non-competitive "safe" seats, leave millions of partisan minorities unrepresented, and incentivize malicious vote-splitting. FairVote champions proportional ranked-choice voting for Congress under the proposed Fair Representation Act. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Protect Democracy and Fix Our House: These non-partisan research and advocacy groups criticize single-member winner-take-all congressional districts as a root cause of partisan toxicity, legislative gridlock, and democratic backsliding. [1]
National Popular Vote: A non-profit initiative advocating for states to join an interstate compact guaranteeing the presidency to the national popular vote winner, circumventing state-level "general ticket" winner-take-all statutes that disenfranchise non-battleground state voters. [1, 2]
Equal Citizens and Boies Schiller Flexner: Founded by Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig, Equal Citizens coordinated legal challenges alongside attorney David Boies arguing that state winner-take-all rules for presidential electors violate the Fourteenth Amendment's "one person, one vote" principle and the First Amendment. [1, 2, 3]
League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) and Brennan Center for Justice: Civil rights advocates that have contested winner-take-all and at-large voting schemes, noting that winner-take-all mechanics frequently dilute the voting power of racial and ethnic minorities in violation of the Voting Rights Act. [1, 2]
New America: A public policy think tank whose political reform program, led by senior fellows like Lee Drutman, actively critiques winner-take-all House elections and calls for proportional representation to resolve two-party doom loops. [1]

What I view as equally undemocratic is the practice of US parties and their candidates to unilaterally determine their legislative priorities and agendas, with scant participation by supporters and voters. The result is that voters have to choose between the two major parties and their candidates in what critics have labeled "no choice elections". Or not vote at all and exert virtually no influence over outcomes. This party-imposed electoral "bind" is what has led half of all registered voters to decline to register in either of the two major parties, and to register instead as "independents". The resulting dilemma is they are unable to vote in party primaries and influence who runs on the parties' general election ballots.

To circumvent these practices, voters who are members of the Direct Democracy Global Network (DDGN) can use its tools and services to create and participate in multi-party elections. The DDGN VoterGuide Q&A describes this possibility.

← Back to BordierBlog