The current U.S. presidential election system limits voter choice and influence, prompting a call for reforms and alternative party support.

A pedestrian walks past a sign for the Iowa caucuses on a downtown skywalk in Des Moines, Iowa, on Feb. 4, 2020.

By Patrick Newton

Many voters are quite upset about the upcoming presidential election. Polls from a year ago showed that most Americans didn't want a race between Trump and Biden. Things have changed slightly with a Trump vs. Harris race, but many of us are still disappointed with the choices, or lack thereof, that we are presented with.

There are many reasons why we are not presented with more choices. Most of them are driven by the power and money embedded in the two main parties and their reluctance to part with either.

The core issues the Forward Party is working to address include ending gerrymandering, utilizing instant runoff elections, providing open primaries, and implementing true campaign finance reform, just to name a few. But let's focus on the presidential election. I find that most Americans want to believe we have a fair process for selecting our president. Unfortunately, I think our trust is a case of misplaced patriotism. I believe there are two main reasons we, the voters, are left out of the decision-making process for selecting our next president.

The first is the all-or-nothing voting of electoral votes. Forty-eight states (sadly including North Carolina) use this rule when determining how their electors will vote in the Electoral College. This means that regardless of how we, the citizens, vote, 100% of our electoral votes will go to either Harris or Trump. Are we really okay with this? I'm proud that we all have the power to vote for whomever we feel is the best candidate, but does that mean almost half of us should have our votes canceled and transferred to the very candidate we voted against? If 55% of us vote for candidate A, and 45% of us vote for candidate B, shouldn't our electoral votes be divided in a way that represents our votes?

In North Carolina, it's not too bad as we are often considered a "swing state." I've always found that term interesting. A more accurate way to put it might be that 90% of us live in states where our vote for president doesn’t matter. The real definition of swing state is a state in which, despite the efforts of both political parties, neither party has enough control to predetermine the election outcome. If you live in a "blue state" but plan to vote for Trump, wouldn't it be nice if your vote had any impact? With proportional voting, the majority of your electoral votes would go to Harris, but at least some of your electoral votes would go to the candidate you voted for.

The second reason we, the voters, have very little impact on presidential elections is the primary season. Think back to the beginning of this presidential election cycle, or for that matter, all of them in recent history. The incumbent party (in this case, the Democrats) does all it can to rally its party around the incumbent (Biden) and to quiet any efforts of alternatives (such as Dean Phillips, Marianne Williamson, and others). The challenging party (in this case, the Republicans) usually sees a full cast of candidates throwing their names into the race. Before the opening primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire, we saw several Republicans hoping to secure their party's nomination for POTUS. They included Chris Christie, Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley, Mike Pence, Tim Scott, Vivek Ramaswamy, Ted Cruz, Doug Burgum, and others.

Now, let's take a look at the system. Rather than having one primary on one day to determine who secures the nomination, the parties prefer to stagger the elections over months, rotating from state to state across the country. Then you mix in "Super Tuesday" (where several states participate on the same day), and things get really interesting. Look at that list above. Do you see any names that you would prefer to see on the ballot in November over Trump (or Harris)? For me in North Carolina, the candidate I am most excited about when the primary season begins is usually not even on the ballot by the time I get to vote. I have family in New Jersey. I can’t remember the last time their votes in a presidential primary mattered at all.

How the candidates do in Iowa and New Hampshire dictates where the money is going to flow. Putting the candidates through a long, slow, expensive primary process thins the crowd quickly. The process impacts us as voters too. If you see that "your candidate" didn't do well in the state before your primary, you may change your vote. The media gives us daily updates on "who still has a chance." If we all voted in one primary, on one day, we would all simply vote for who we believe is the best choice.

The candidates are (usually) professional politicians and tend to keep a keen eye on their individual careers. If you don't do well early, there is a lot of motivation to throw your support behind the front-runner. You may be considered for an appointed position (Cabinet, UN, etc.) or even find yourself running for Vice President. Most of the Republican candidates (maybe not Christie) were quick to support Trump. The longer you stay in the race, the more quickly you are accused of "not supporting the party," and no career politician wants that on their record.

So here are the choices we are left with:

1. Continue to tolerate a broken system controlled by the two main parties, lobbyists, and just about everyone except the voters.
2. Join the Forward Party. Help fight to make the real changes we need to give the people more choice and more voice.
3. We all move to Iowa or New Hampshire so we can have a say in who becomes president.