Multipartyism in a multiracial democracy

Grappling with Selma’s legacy and the constraints of a two-party system

Martin Luther King Jr. once considered a run for the presidency. The Reverend toyed with the idea of enlisting renowned pediatrician and activist Dr. Benjamin Spock as a running mate on the Peace and Freedom Party’s ticket. 

His vision of entering the political arena via multiracial alliance never came to pass. After pressure from the Democratic Party and others to withhold his candidacy, King eventually resigned himself to a position of political neutrality, stating in 1967: “I have come to think of my role as one which operates outside the realm of partisan politics.” Maintaining this neutrality, King urged fellow activists to seek advantageous political alliances where they might form — including with, but not limited to, the Democratic Party. But King also cautioned Black activists and voters against sacrificing Black empowerment in exchange for inclusion in white-led mainstream politics. Echoing Malcom X’s 1964 speech “The Ballot or the Bullet,”  King advised: “alliance does not mean reliance, our independence will remain inviolate.”

Cautious disloyalty to the two major parties might appear politically disadvantageous, particularly for the Black electorate. But the notion would have resonated with King’s supporters, who were stonewalled by both of the two major political parties. Insufficient responses to the needs of Black Americans by both parties led Black activists to form independent political parties, dedicated to improving the lives of African Americans in the United States. 

The emergence of Black third parties

In the 1960s, several state-based Black political parties emerged, including: The Party of Christian Democracy in Georgia; the Black Freedom Party in North Carolina; the Afro-American Party and the Lowndes County Freedom Organization (LCFO) in Alabama; the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (MFDP) in Mississippi; and perhaps the most conspicuous (though not ballot-qualified) Black Panther Party in California. 

Despite struggling to influence policy and legislation, thanks in part to the two party duopoly’s efforts to quash their reach, they did succeed in raising concerns regarding the social, political, and economic circumstances of Black Americans that both major parties had long comfortably ignored or insufficiently addressed. It was pressure from these ambitious organizations — working in tandem with other civil rights strategies, including the 1965 marches from Selma to Montgomery — that ultimately led to the passage of civil rights legislation and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 

Still, the question of how much influence these parties could have had on policy had they been permitted legitimate entry into the mainstream political arena lingers. How much potential progress was lost then, and continues to be lost now? In 1972, with Black Americans still struggling to find representation under the two-party system, Reverend Jesse Jackson stated: “I don’t want to be the gray shadow of a white elephant or the gray shadow of a white donkey . . . I am a Black man, and I want a Black party.” This major Black party never came to fruition, and Jackson himself later became active in the Democratic Party. Years later, the question of how much could have been achieved by a Black party, or one specifically sensitive to the needs of the Black electorate, remains. 

Towards an inclusionary future

While this loss will never be quantifiable, there are pathways towards reform that would allow issue-based third parties to influence political discourse more substantially in the United States. One such pathway is a shift towards a proportional electoral system, which would obviate the “reliance” upon the two major parties that Dr. King warned against. 

Proportional representation is an electoral system in which voters gain seats in proportion to their electoral strength. Under proportional systems, the electoral threshold is lowered and parties that garner a smaller percentage of the vote are still able to gain their fair share of seats. Thus, a proportional system is more likely to create a representative body that reflects the overall distribution of public support for each party. This would mean a Black third party, or any issue-based third party with enough popular support, could have a legitimate influence on policy and legislation without having to amass over 50 percent of the vote in a given election.

A shift to a proportional electoral system would facilitate the creation of new parties that serve the interests of diverse communities. The competition created by these parties would then encourage major parties to be responsive to a larger range of social, economic, and political issues in order to retain support. That’s how a more proportional system would facilitate the “transformative and inclusionary vision of the civil rights movement,” as imagined by activists who seek to move beyond the political necessity of acquiescing to the flawed two-party system.

To learn more about proportional representation, click here.

Or watch this video about how proportional representation works and how it could create a more equal America.