America will not work without another viable political party.

The Democracy Index, created by the Economist Intelligence Unit, ranks the state of democracy worldwide. It offers a numerical and comparative analysis focused on democratic freedoms and institutions. The index calculates a weighted average from responses to 60 questions, each allowing two or three possible answers. These inquiries address various democratic dimensions, such as pluralism, civil liberties, political culture, and governmental functionality. Each country is assigned a regime type according to its cumulative score.

Nations are classified within the index based on their scores, with full democracies representing the highest level of democratic governance, followed by flawed democracies, hybrid regimes, and authoritarian regimes, each indicating a progressively lower level of democratic governance.

Since its inception in 2006, the Democracy Index has been a crucial annual gauge of the global state of democracy. It is a practical reference for understanding democratic conditions and political frameworks worldwide, making it an indispensable tool for policy analysts, political scientists, and individuals interested in global democracy.

Norway, Finland, Sweden, Iceland, and New Zealand are the top five countries on the Index. They all operate under multiparty systems, where numerous political parties spanning the political spectrum compete in national elections. Each party is capable of independently or collaboratively assuming government control. Multiparty systems are more prevalent in parliamentary than presidential systems and are more widespread in nations that adopt proportional representation over first-past-the-post electoral methods.

From this, I will conclude that a multiparty system is more democratic than a two-party system.

On the democracy index, America ranks 25th out of 167 and is classified as a flawed democracy. If we are to make America a more democratic country (or, I would argue, a democratic country), we need more viable parties than the Democratic and Republican parties.

The challenges posed by ballot access laws in the United States profoundly impact third-party and independent candidates, making their election participation an uphill battle. These laws, which exhibit significant variations from state to state, often bolster the duopoly of the Democrats and Republicans, curtailing the electoral opportunities for alternative voices. Let’s delve into some of these daunting challenges:

One of the most arduous challenges is the signature Requirements: Third-party and independent candidates are often mandated to collect a staggering number of signatures from registered voters within a state to qualify for ballot access. This process, which can span from thousands to tens of thousands of signatures, is time-consuming and demands substantial resources and meticulous organization.

Filing Fees: Candidates may also be required to pay substantial filing fees. These fees serve as another barrier to entry, particularly for candidates with limited financial resources.

Deadlines: The deadlines for meeting ballot access requirements are often set well before the election. Third-party and independent candidates must begin their campaigns much earlier than their major-party counterparts.

Variability Between States: The rules for ballot access vary significantly from state to state, creating a complex landscape for candidates aiming to run nationwide campaigns.

“Sore Loser” Laws: Some states have laws preventing candidates who lose in a major party primary from running as independent or third-party candidates in the general election.

As far as I can tell, the number of third parties and independents currently in office is limited. Out of 7818 seats available in State legislatures, the House, and the Senate, 81 third-party and independent candidates are in State houses, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. So, third parties and independents comprise 1.04 % of the government.

Establishing a new competitive political party in America demands a strategic and multifaceted approach. Initially, this would entail uniting various radical factions and movements, such as progressives, environmentalists, socialists, and others dissatisfied with the status quo, under a shared ideological framework. Creating this New Party would be challenging and likely take years to happen. I suggest limiting the initial consolidation to the following parties:

• Black Alliance for Peace
• All African People’s Revolutionary Party
• African Peoples Socialist Party
• The New Black Panther Party
• Lowndes County Freedom Democratic Party
• Party for Socialism and Liberation
• Black Socialist USA

Even this limited number of organizations would need help to agree on a unified approach and leadership. However, the potential impact of these groups finding common ground and leveraging their collective strength to form a party that embodies various interests is immense. This New Party could foster hope and optimism for a more promising political future, inspiring our audience with the possibilities of change.

Once the New Party is established, the next crucial step in our strategic plan is to foster grassroots support. Grassroots involvement is not just a means to an end but a fundamental aspect of our party’s identity. We anticipate conducting at least a year of grassroots education through various channels, such as churches, civil associations, Greek letter organizations, and HBCUs. This endeavor will require substantial financial resources, which I will elaborate on later.

Our strategic plan’s heart is creating a compelling and unified ideological platform. With its potential to propose innovative solutions, this platform could galvanize a broad voter base. Offering a distinct and convincing alternative to the policies of the Republican and Democratic parties, we can draw considerable support and position ourselves as credible political contenders, igniting enthusiasm for our vision.

We need to establish a leadership development and policy development institute. Some existing organizations, such as the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, could help in this endeavor.

The New Party must fund itself through individual donations; there is no magic here. Capitalist businesses would not support this party. Party parties have to give people a reason for people who don’t have much money to part with some. For people to do that, there has to be a value proposition. Such a value proposition would produce some incremental change so that people see the benefit of their investment in the near term. Running for president is NOT one of the near-term goals; Running for school board, city council, or state representative is a much better bet.