The more polarized this country becomes, the more I find myself asking what American politics would be without Republicans and Democrats.

It is abundantly clear that the two-party system is not leaving anytime soon, and it is almost impossible to imagine what the government would look like without it. Still, its very existence poses a threat to the effectiveness of our democratic process as increasing polarization prevents effective representation of the American people.

When I turned 18 years old, there were so many new things I could do, but for me, the most notable was voting. The voting process began when I was 16, filling out the voter pre-registration form at the DMV. My eyes were drawn to the political party section — glancing over the two mainstream parties, the Democrats and Republicans, my attention quickly found the third parties.

The Working Families Party and Conservative Party were mostly unfamiliar, and the only familiarity I had with the Libertarian Party was the belief that they stole votes from the two mainstream parties. After a bit of deliberation, I ended up selecting no party affiliation, knowing that if I ever gained a strong affinity for one of the parties, I could always change it.

So there I was, an official independent, free from rules and the confinement of a political party — or so I thought.

It turns out New York is a closed primary state, meaning only registered members of a party can vote in that party’s primary, and independents like myself are left out of the fun. On a serious note, the implications of this are worrisome. With so many people being left out of the selection process, it calls into question whether the chosen candidates are even representative of the people, especially because elections almost always end up being a battle between Democratic and Republican nominees.

This is at the center of why the two-party system is rotting American politics. How can a government be truly representative of the people if the people representing them are chosen almost out of habit rather than by merit and beliefs? Can they really enact the will of the people? Can two parties truly represent a vast nation full of diverse ideas? Clearly not. We live in a system so stuck in party conformity that it forces us into situations like the current government shutdown and only seems to fuel the ever-constant attacks between parties.

The unfortunate reality is that the United States houses a wide range of ideas, but has confined its citizens to only two parties — parties that are too broad to truly be representative of their members. It’s impossible to expect party members to agree on everything, but the range of ideas in each party is simply too vast.

In the Democratic Party, you can find both a progressive who adamantly opposes foreign intervention in wars and a moderate who believes these interventions are necessary and beneficial. In the Republican Party, you can find members who are very libertarian in both social and economic issues sitting next to people who seek greater government control in these areas. So why are these people with vastly different views grouped into the same party?

Clearly, U.S. politics has an issue, but enacting small changes can prove effective in dismantling the seemingly unspoken rule of only nominating Democrats and Republicans to political roles.

To start, we could look to the many democracies around the world that use a multiparty system for inspiration. In those countries, it is very difficult for a single party to maintain a legislative majority, which forces candidates to work harder for the benefit of their people. As a result, campaigns are focused more on actual policy rather than relentless attacks on the opposition — politics focus around the people instead of parties.

After winning, those elected have a greater incentive to work with those in other parties to pass legislation that is more widely representative. This type of system would create a less polarized political climate in the United States through collaboration and the representation of a wider range of ideas.

However, dismantling the two-party system’s chokehold won’t be easy. After all, the United States often has more than two parties running in a given election — it’s just that only two parties are taken seriously.

There is a promising way we can get past this: ranked choice voting. We’ve already seen it play out on a more local scale in the New York City mayoral race, and by changing the way we view elections, ranked choice voting can push us beyond the two-party system and help shift our political culture in the right direction.

By ranking candidates in order of preference rather than just selecting one, people will no longer have to vote with the mindset that they may be wasting a vote. In this format, third-party candidates will become more viable options, helping push us away from the grasp of the rigid two-party system. Under this system, the “lesser of two evils” rhetoric will no longer be reasonable, and candidates will be forced to center their campaigns around the benefit of the people instead of making the opposing party look worse.

The two-party system will always fail because it can never truly represent everyone in the United States. To be better represented, we need to move beyond the two-party system, the first step of which is a shift in the public’s mindset, and that starts at the individual level.

Kayla Cloherty is a freshman majoring in history. 

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial.