Stating the obvious: Ours is a government (and thus a society) in crisis. All three branches of our federal government are led by men who do not believe in pluralism. Compromise is for the weak; domination is for the strong.

Stating the less obvious: this governmental crisis is only possible because of the failure of our political party system. It’s a system that has not functioned well for several decades, and now one of our two major parties has been fully captured by an authoritarian faction. This essay offers, humbly but urgently, a feasible strategy for party-system reform that could help weaken the authoritarians.

For many years, supermajorities of American citizens have told pollsters that our political system needs major changes and/or a complete overhaul. Gallup reports that public satisfaction with “how democracy is working in this country” has trended downward since 1998. For 30-plus years, a volcano of disaffection has rumbled below the surface of contemporary political life.

In the past, a variety of institutional barriers, including the separation of powers, divided government, independent courts, and a skeptical media, have kept this volcano from erupting. Not anymore. A highly organized political minority has taken full control of one of America’s two major parties. At the same time, the other major party is unable to build a majoritarian coalition that is both big enough and stable enough to steer the country in a better direction. It’s “a plague on both your houses” era. Public opinion polls reliably suggest that most Americans oppose the MAGA agenda and President Trump’s approval rating hovers around a lackluster 40 percent. But as unpopular as the GOP may be, the Democratic Party does even worse: just one-third of voters view it favorably. Trump may be sinking but that does not mean the opposition is rising.

Negative partisanship is the main thing that holds both major party coalitions together. No matter how unhappy a Republican or Democrat may be with their own party, when it comes to voting, most return to their traditional tribe because “the other side is worse.” It’s a system with only two choices, utterly lacking in complexity or dimensionality. Dissatisfied voters may not want a dictatorship, but two bad dynamics get reinforced once cross-partisan comity breaks down. First, the more partisans come to see the other side as extreme and norm-breaking, regardless of facts, the more willing they become to accept undemocratic actions on behalf of policy wins they want. Second, the more they experience “democracy” as a dysfunctional war between two sides that simply cannot compromise with one another, the more they are attracted to charismatic strongmen who promise to “get things done.” Even after Trump is gone, these underlying dynamics will continue.

So, what should pro-democracy reformers do? The structural problems in our democracy are not exactly secrets. The power of big money. The malapportionment of the Senate. The Electoral College. Single-member districts and the gerrymandering that such districts make possible. The gridlock-inducing combination of presidentialism and bicameralism in which “divided government” inevitably means government that fails to address public problems, thus delegitimizing government further.

But one structural problem is missing from this list: the two-party system itself. That’s bad, but what’s good is that this particular problem is not rooted in our Constitution. It requires only a statute or a court ruling, not a miracle, to create a better party system. And while one should always be careful not to overclaim, on this topic that’s more or less impossible. If we don’t get out of the zero-sum binary of our pre-modern winner-take-all system, if we don’t claw our way to a healthier, more representative, and more flexible multiparty system, then we will stay stuck in the two-party downward spiral that is ruining social and political life. Political scientist Lee Drutman calls it the “two-party doom loop,” and it’s long past time to escape.

The doom loop is so utterly familiar that most of us treat it as an inevitable feature of democracy, almost an act of nature. But in truth it is a feature that specifically accompanies the simple majority, single-winner election system used in almost all U.S. elections. When there is only one winner, said a French political scientist named Maurice Duverger, then you will tend to end up with two and only two relevant political parties. There might well be a substantial percentage of voters interested in a third (or fourth, or fifth) party, but these same voters correctly understand that third parties are doomed to irrelevance by the wasted vote and spoiler dilemmas. And so we in the United States live under Duverger’s Law.

How might we change this? The answer is not complicated. We need to repeal the laws that artificially created and continue to sustain a two-party duopoly. The starting point is our own history, because for the first 125 years of the country’s existence, America had a vibrant and fluid multi-party system. It was a system that goes by different names—plural nomination, multiple-party nomination; but it is best known by its nineteenth-century name: fusion. It’s a system in which more than one party can nominate the same candidate, each doing so under their own ballot label. The votes cast are tallied separately by party, and then added together (or “fused”) to produce the final result. Legal and common throughout the nineteenth and into the early twentieth centuries, fusion voting and fusion parties are dimly remembered today. But most readers will quickly grasp the potential that fusion’s revival could mean in our own era

Beginning in the 1840s, the two major parties—first the Democrats and the Whigs, and then, after the Whigs collapsed, the Democrats and the Republicans—shared the political stage with a host of smaller parties. Some of the names still resonate: the Liberty, Free Soil, Know Nothing, and Anti-Nebraska parties before the Civil War, and the Greenback, Prohibition, Silver, and People’s parties afterwards.

It was a more fluid system. The rules allowed and encouraged new parties to emerge, and alliances between parties were common. It wasn’t hard for abolition-minded voters, who might have formed a local branch of the Liberty Party, to distinguish between a pro-slavery Democrat and an anti-slavery Whig. In such districts they could urge their supporters: “Vote for so-and-so. He’s a Whig who is good on abolition. Not perfect, but better than the Democrat. So, vote for him but do so on the Liberty Party ticket. Send him a message that you want him to stand up even stronger for abolition.” The minor party, in a fusion-legal regime, remains both independent and relevant.

Such fusion coalitions resulted in victories that we recall nearly two centuries later. The results? It was a Liberty-Whig fusion alliance that elected Congressman Joshua Giddings of Ohio; and it was Giddings who forced an end to the “gag” rule that prevented slavery from even being debated on the floor of Congress. And it was Free Soil-Democratic fusion in the Massachusetts legislature that sent the great Charles Sumner to the U.S. Senate.

But it is after the Civil War that fusion parties truly blossom and transform the political landscape. The Greenback-Democrat alliance produced fusion governors in Maine, Massachusetts, and Michigan; Populist-Democrat fusions did the same in Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Oregon. And there were many hundreds of legislators who likewise enjoyed the electoral support of voters who came from more than one party.

But this richer, sometimes raucous multiparty democracy was not to last. In the 1880s, state governments started regulating elections due to the introduction of the “Australian” ballot. This meant a standardized ballot that the state printed and required voters to use, replacing the older system in which the parties themselves printed ballots listing their favored candidates which their followers then dropped into ballot boxes. Under the new system, it did not take long for the dominant parties—Republicans in the north and Democrats in the south—to draft and pass “anti-fusion” laws that made fusion nominations by minor parties illegal. For the Gilded Age Republicans, this eliminated the farmer-worker alliance, established via the fusion of Democrats and Populists, that was pushing for debt relief, unemployment insurance, and prohibition. In the South, it meant that Jim Crow Democrats need not fear the coalition of Black Republicans and white Populists that had challenged them on voting rights, land ownership, and education in Virginia and North Carolina.

By the early 1900s, the major parties had banned fusion in most states and the smaller parties that relied on it slowly faded away. Today only two states, Connecticut and New York, continue to allow fusion voting. It is not coincidental that these are the only two states in which third parties routinely exercise power in elections and state-level policy formation.

Two Parties, Two (Different) Factional Problems

Many trends have fueled the transformation of our party system, including the nationalization of campaign finance, the collapse of local news, the consolidation of partisan media, and the decline of cross-class and cross-interest local organizations.  Until about 30 years ago, the Republican and Democratic parties each contained liberal and conservative factions. Think, for example, of Republican senators like Lincoln Chafee and John Heinz, and Democratic senators like Sam Nunn and David Boren.  There were, in a real and productive sense, four parties inside the two-party system.

That era is gone. The two major parties are fully “sorted” into two distinct, non-overlapping camps. The polarization is asymmetric, worse on the right than the left, but it has infected all aspects of political and even social life. Gone are the days when there were routine cross-cutting alliances and deal-making across party and ideology in order to address the issues of the day. In its place is a new era in which the MAGA movement has taken full control of the federal government. There are many reasons for MAGA’s rise, but perhaps the most important one is the distortion inherent to a two-party system. A brief comparison sheds some light on why that’s so.

In Germany there exists a full-fledged equivalent of the MAGA movement. It’s a hard-right political party called Alternativ fur Deutschland, or AfD, and it’s the fastest-growing political party in the country. In last year’s national elections, it surpassed what were already high expectations when 21 percent of Germans cast their vote for the AfD.

It was a solid showing: second best among the six contending parties. In the German system, that twenty-one percent converts into about twenty one percent of the seats in the national legislature. That’s not close to a majority, but it gives them a voice in the public discourse.

Meanwhile, back in the United States, the MAGA movement is almost exactly the same size as its German counterpart. Credible public opinion surveys demonstrate again and again that MAGA can count on about 20 percent of the voting population to assert loyalty to its cause.

But MAGA has a big advantage over their AfD cousins: A two-party system gives them a much better conversion rate than the AfD could ever achieve under the German system. MAGA’s twenty percent of all adults converts into 50–60 percent of the GOP primary electorate, and that in turn means 100 percent control of one of our two major parties. And when there are only two, sometimes yours will be in control. Today’s authoritarian capture would be next to impossible but for the non-proportional design of our party system.

This does not mean that the system caused our current crisis, only that it allows it. A disciplined faction that disdains the rule of law, disregards the Constitution, and detests the Declaration of Independence now wields the fearsome power of the federal government. MAGA leadership may be delighted, but sadness, anger, and fear grip the land.

On to the Democrats. They have a different problem, but it, too, is related to the logic of the two-party system. Unlike the GOP, no one faction dominates the Democratic Party. This often means the Democrats struggle to speak with one voice, or they offer platitudes so general and banal as not to offend anyone. They are trying to be too many things to too many people (as some have said, the party is too big). They may be divided among themselves, but the logic of the two-party system means they feel little pressure to get a divorce or come up with a fresh approach. In a two-party system, the second party has a de facto “monopoly of the opposition.” They hope that “we’re not Trump” will suffice to keep their base united and inspired.

Indeed that may be enough to flip one or even both houses of Congress later this year, but it simply will not suffice for the long haul. The whole point of a political party is to develop and promote a unifying, inspiring vision. The decades-long fight between the Democratic center and left is evidence of underlying disunity. The party is too evenly divided to present a persuasive, compelling face to the public. And in today’s information environment, where we all compete for attention every day, the lack of a clear message translates into no message at all.

At the end of the day, the two-party system is artificially advantaging an anti-democracy minority while stifling the emergence of the kind of big tent, multi-party, pro-democracy coalition that has successfully defeated authoritarianism in other countries. The reason to forge such a coalition could not be more obvious: We don’t get to have a debate about the proper way forward on anything if basic agreements about the rule of law, the use of violence by the state, and the value of pluralism itself are fed into that famous wood chipper.

But just because the need for unity is obvious doesn’t make it easy to achieve. We need mechanisms that allow and encourage healthy political engagement, bargaining, coalition, and compromise. The revival of fusion voting and the creation of fusion parties offer one such mechanism.

Painting a Picture: How Fusion Would Work

Consider a set of elections in a state where fusion is newly legal in, say, 2028.

A new Common Sense Party has emerged in the state. It’s led by a coalition of Republicans, Democrats, and unaffiliated voters who no longer feel at home in their traditional parties, or who, in some cases, never had a party.

The Common Sense Party’s platform emphasizes support for the rule of law, freedom of speech, and “common sense” public problem-solving. Its district committees in the state hold screening interviews with the two major-party candidates running for both federal and state seats. The Common Sense Party is not interested in fielding “stand-alone” candidates under its own label: The leaders know that’s not viable. In this hypothetical congressional district, they vote to cross-nominate a centrist Democrat over a MAGA-affiliated Republican. Down ballot, it’s the reverse, as they cross-nominate a moderate Republican in a state senate contest against a Democrat whom the Common Sense screening committee felt was lacking in, well, common sense.

Here’s the Common Sense Party’s final Election Day message to the voters in the congressional race:

“We have evaluated both the Democratic and the Republican congressional candidates in our district, focusing especially on their commitment to bi-partisanship, civility, and the rule of law. And we’re recommending Democrat Jane Griego.

We are registered Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, and on these issues, she’s far the better candidate. If you agree that these values are important, we urge you to vote for her under the Common Sense Party line. It counts the same as a vote on a major party line, but it lets her know that these values matter to you.”

Griego is losing in the straight-up Democratic vs. Republican contest by almost 3 percent, but with the votes that are cast for her on the Common Sense line, she wins. That is fusion voting in action.

The Common Sense leadership will claim, with merit, to have helped her over the finish line. No doubt Griego will be more attentive to her “home” party, but if she’s a competent politician, she won’t be inattentive to the moderates and centrists gathered in the Common Sense party.

And don’t forget that lower-level state legislative race in which the Common Sense Party also nominated a candidate. They stayed true to their values and once again backed a centrist-minded moderate, only this time it was a Republican. And this second nominee also won their race. Taken together, the results send a loud-and-clear message to the hard-right Republicans: There’s a price to be paid for ignoring this new party. A stronger center is the best and perhaps only way for this message to be sent.

Fundamentally, fusion’s power lies in its ability to create meaningful new political identities. It allows voters—of all stripes, left, right, and center—to vote for his or her values without having to support a rival or opposing party with a mostly intolerable program. This psychological distance is crucial; it dramatically weakens the grip that negative partisanship has on our choices. “I may be voting for Griego, but I’m sending her a message that I’m not a Democrat, I’m a Common Sense voter, and I’m expecting her to govern in a way that represents me, too.”

Yes, the moderate elected officials once common in the GOP have largely disappeared. But moderate GOP voters have not. Not to mention the vast numbers of Americans without a party affiliation, who often pay less attention to politics but feel disdain for both major parties. They might well enjoy hearing from some new forces in political life.

The Heart of a Healthy Democracy

Politics is how we decide who gets what. It’s how we resolve differences without recourse to violence. And one utterly crucial if insufficiently appreciated truth about any functioning democracy is this: Politics is a team sport, not an individual one. It’s worth reminding ourselves that each individual voter in fact has very little power. As veteran organizers Doran Schrantz and Maurice Mitchell wrote last year in Boston Review, “[V]oting itself does not transform an individual into a political actor who has the experience of agency. That requires a means of collective expression—organizations and parties that bundle shared interests into political power.”

Political parties that recruit and elevate candidates and organize voters around common labels and values, and the secondary associations—the fraternal associations, religious congregations, trade associations, trade unions, community groups, PTAs, issue advocacy groups, mutual aid societies, and so on that bring people together around shared interests—these are the warp and woof of democracy. No healthy democracy exists without them. Reformers who argue for weakening parties are well meaning but misguided. As odd as it sounds to American ears, the only way out of the two-party system is via “more and better parties.” We are not going to click our way to freedom. And bowling alone is still a drag.

People will always sort themselves into political parties. No matter what set of rules is used to select candidates, organize voters, and pick winners, political parties perform essential functions: They give voters key signals about which candidates to support, they recruit and back candidates that broadly share their values, and they organize legislative majorities to enact their programs. As scholars Tabatha Abu El-Haj and Didi Kuo write in their seminal paper on associational party-building, “Political parties are the only institutions capable of political organization at the scale necessary to produce accountability and responsiveness in a nation as vast and diverse as the United States.”

One last story to underline the potential of the multiparty coalitions that fusion voting makes possible. It comes from North Carolina in the mid-1890s.

Reconstruction is long over. The farm economy is, as ever, an unforgiving one. And politics, with Democrats in charge, does not offer much hope.

But people are organizing new parties. Poor white farmers are joining the People’s Party. Better known as Populists, their aim is to take on the railroads that gouged farmers on shipping costs and the lenders whose credit policies made farm life a grinding struggle. They find common ground with the state’s even poorer Black residents who, emancipated by the Civil War and enfranchised by the Fifteenth Amendment, have been solidly Republican ever since. For a few brief years, under the banner of Fusionism, Republicans and Populists back the same candidates, win elections, and wield power. They control the state legislature and pass laws to improve schooling and voting, elect a governor, and send a Black man named George Henry White to Washington (where he is the nation’s sole Black congressman).

Consider this, then. Two factions of society that could not have been more different in their history and culture were nevertheless able to form a political coalition. These were ex-Confederates and their children uniting with former slaves and their children. No one had to give up their identity in order to form something bigger than what either could do alone. Ultimately the Fusionists could not withstand the terrorist violence visited upon the Black Republicans by white supremacist militias, but for a few years they showed the country what a multi-party, bi-racial coalition could accomplish. It will surprise precisely no one to learn that when the Democrats finally regained power, they made certain to pass a law that outlawed fusion voting.

The Way Forward

The first year of Trump 2.0 has ended. One is no longer surprised by the chaos and cruelty. I personally had never heard of the “authoritarian playbook” before this year, but I know what it is now. I’m also certain that pro-democracy forces will defeat the authoritarians in the long run because human beings really do prefer freedom to unfreedom.

But the long run is not good enough. We’re all learning, in real time, that there are tried and true ways to nonviolently stem and ultimately defeat authoritarianism. Some of the lessons come from other countries, some from our own history. Don’t obey in advance. Take to the streets peacefully and in massive numbers. Strengthen insofar as possible key institutions of civil society. Use the judiciary even in its weakened state. Encourage and welcome defectors from the “other” side. Above all, build a bigger civic and electoral coalition that is bigger than the one we currently have.

The Sweet Spot

Advocates for structural reform inevitably face a long and winding road, so it behooves them (us) to ask ourselves a vital question: does the proposed measure hit the “sweet spot” that all reformers seek? Meaning, is it both impactful and feasible? There are many reforms that are one or the other, but not both. To me, the historical record and my understanding of the current moment suggest that fusion voting would indeed hit that spot.

On impact: Repealing the bans will allow and even encourage the formation of new, meaningful, non-spoiler third parties. These new parties will have lines on the ballot, and that means they can inject new ideas and voices into the political discourse, just as their minor party ancestors did for abolition, suffrage, the eight-hour day, anti-trust, and prohibition.

A multiparty system by definition will help move us away from the zero-sum outcomes – “I can only win if you lose” – that characterize politics today. It incentivizes and moves us towards positive-sum outcomes. Indeed it’s not hard to imagine that with good leadership and decent luck these new parties will improve the chances for proportional representation itself.

On feasibility: There are three paths to repealing the existing bans on fusion voting and parties: (1) suing under state constitutions to overturn the bans as an unconstitutional abridgment of the rights to free association and speech; (2) passing a bill through a state legislature; or (3) winning a ballot initiative or referendum. Advocates are working on all three paths, and no one is naive: these are uphill battles. But there’s no question that the appetite in the citizenry for a healthier politics is real and growing, and therein lies the opportunity. Imagine a country with a Rural Prosperity, Rule of Law, Wages and Prices, or New Horizons party, each made up of people who currently feel unhappy with the two major parties but who don’t want to drop out of civic life.

Fusion and multi-partyism are not magic. But we need some tools that will allow for useful experimentation and relationship building as we travel the never-ending road to a more perfect union. If we are ever going to build that civic and electoral coalition that we so desperately need, people who do not agree will need to work and ally with one another. Indeed it may be that the only thing the varying parties and factions can agree on is that they each cherish the ability to disagree. An optimist might say that’s what freedom and democracy are all about.