As I read the coverage from this week's party caucuses, it struck me that the political arena is one of the few areas of American life where we openly tolerate the existence of a monopoly. Econ 101 teaches us that, without threat of competition, firms will generate inferior products that reflect the interests of the company, rather than the needs of the market -- as evidenced by the U.S. auto companies in the 1980s. As consumers, we bear the ultimate burden of monopolies in the form of poor quality, narrow selection and inflated prices. While we go to great lengths to prevent monopolies in the private sector, we've allowed a duopoly to flourish in our public electoral process. The net result is that, instead of K-cars, the Democratic and Republican parties too often produce candidates who pander to the same tired internal agendas, rather than reflect the values, priorities and needs of mainstream voters. If we want more thoughtful, innovative government, we need to start by expanding our choice of candidates. There are a number of ways that we can improve the competitive nature of the ballot -- supporting third-parties, advocating for ranked-choice voting and supporting public financing of elections. The competence of our government is only as good as the quality of folks we elect to represent us. And until we find ways to better apply the virtues of competition into our democratic process, we're destined to be dissatisfied with the candidates and governance the major parties can provide.
ERIC L. SNYDER, EXCELSIOR