Destructive and toxic partisanship is nothing new in American politics. What should be worrying, however, is just how unrepresentative of the broader public our electeds have become as a result.

When Democratic candidates were bragging about their willingness to “reach across the aisle” in the 2020 presidential primary, there was no shortage of partisan operatives, pundits and analysts who lamented the prospect of team blue taking part in anything that looked like a “post-partisan” compromise. And, of course, it doesn’t take much to see the nearly cultish obsession within the GOP to “own the libs” rather than extend an olive branch to moderate or left-leaning voters. 

On the state level, the same toxic cocktail of partisanship, pandering and populism is no less evident than what is lamentably commonplace on the federal level. 

A recent analysis by The Nevada Independent, for example, highlighted the degree to which “moderate” politicians are an endangered species in Carson City — a revelation that comes as little surprise to anyone who follows the absurdity of any given legislative session. 

While the Republican Party has proven to be home to more legislative moderates than its Democratic counterpart in the Silver State, a quick look at the graphs included in The Nevada Independent’s analysis shows that both sides are, nonetheless, decidedly averse to embracing political compromise nowadays. 

Indeed, the lack of moderates from both parties — but especially the majority party — is noteworthy, given how purple the state’s voters have shown themselves to be. One would think, in a swingy state like ours, the majority party might have a more diverse ideological makeup and post-partisan compromise between the two parties might be more commonplace. 

Obviously, however, one would be wrong. 

No wonder nonpartisan voters are now the largest voting bloc in the state. And while a sizable portion of that growth can certainly be attributed to Nevada’s “motor voter” law that defaults new registrants to “unaffiliated,” recent election outcomes lend credibility to the argument that nonpartisan voters are becoming an increasingly important part of the state’s electorate.

Indeed, the most recent election is evidence that Nevadans are beginning to care a whole lot less about party affiliation than activists and grifting partisan opportunists would otherwise prefer. In a year when Democrats nearly gained a veto-proof majority in the legislative branch, plenty of Nevada voters were nonetheless willing to “split their ticket” and elect a Republican governor — making Joe Lombardo the only Republican, nationally, to oust a Democratic gubernatorial incumbent in 2022.

And yet, despite this shift toward nonpartisan voter behavior, the parties themselves have been growing seemingly more hostile toward moderation or collaboration with their ideological “others” — both locally and nationally. Many state Republican parties across the nation have effectively morphed themselves into fan clubs for Donald J. Trump — and, seeing an opportunity of their own to shape the future of politics, Democratic activists have worked to purge their own party of ideological heretics as well. 

However, narrowing what it means to be a good Democrat or Republican isn’t a sustainable plan for remaining relevant — a lesson some state GOP parties are apparently learning the hard way as of late. 

The Colorado GOP, for example, has literally bankrupted itself catering to an increasingly narrow faction of “conservative” activists and primary voters over the years. And yet, rather than reset itself and consider the age-old tactic of building a bigger political tent, Republican leadership in the once-purple Centennial State have instead flirted with making changes to its nomination process that would shut out not only independents, but also the majority of Republican voters as well. 

If such an institutional failure from team red sounds familiar, it’s probably because the Nevada GOP isn’t too far behind it — doing such self-defeating things as electing a Republican firebrand (who lost her statewide race by a larger margin than any other statewide GOP candidate in 2022) to the role of national committeewoman.

While not quite as flamboyant or self-immolating, the Democratic Party has made its unrepresentative nature similarly known through their recent legislative obstinance in Nevada. Say what you will about educational choice programs such as Opportunity Scholarships, but such reforms are highly popular among ideologically and demographically diverse voter populations — and the Democratic Party’s refusal to budge in its opposition isn’t indicative of a party interested in finding “middle ground” with its Republican governor.

In other words: Neither party is proving itself to be terribly representative of the growing “independent” movement taking place among the broader electorate — nor does either party seem particularly interested in doing so.

Primary voters in both parties seem relentlessly intent on ignoring the “big tent politicking” that used to dominate campaigns during the Clinton and Bush years — instead choosing political “purity” over general electability with depressing predictability. And given the degree to which each party’s base has grown disdainful of anyone who dares to venture too far toward the middle, it seems unlikely much will change in the short term. 

As it turns out, our political status quo is clearly not one that lends itself to producing the kind of representative electeds we deserve. If it were, the American people would have likely never had to endure an election between the two most unfavorable political figures in American political history seven years ago — a race that thrust the relentless failure of Trump-era Republican politics upon us. 

Even third parties offer little hope in the short term, as is evidenced by the never-ending internal conflict taking place within the Libertarian Party. However, hoping for a third-party rescue from our destructive partisan status quo is largely fantastical daydreaming anyway, given the current electoral structure of closed primaries, winner-take-all general elections and complicated (often prohibitive) ballot access laws.  

As Sondra Cosgrove, history professor at the College of Southern Nevada and executive director of civic engagement nonprofit Vote Nevada, recently pointed out to The Nevada Independent, without a structural change to how we conduct our elections, “you're not going to get a viable third party, ever.” And that probably explains why leaders from both parties are staunchly opposed to reforms such as ranked choice voting, approval voting or open primaries — despite a seemingly bipartisan interest among ordinary voters. 

Indeed, as long as enough voters continue to view elections as little more than a choice between the lesser of two evils, partisan profiteers and political opportunists will continue to drive both parties ever further toward the ideological fringes. In so doing, however, they are creating an army of ignored, discontented and unrepresented “post-partisan” voters fed up with the toxic partisanship that has come to define our electoral politics. 

And sooner or later, that army might just be big enough to start doing something about it. 

Michael Schaus is a communications and branding expert based in Las Vegas, Nevada, and founder of Schaus Creative LLC — an agency dedicated to helping organizations, businesses and activists tell their story and motivate change. He has more than a decade of experience in public affairs commentary, having worked as a news director, columnist, political humorist, and most recently as the director of communications for a public policy think tank. Follow him at SchausCreative.com or on Twitter at @schausmichael.