The argument to define elections—and specifically political parties—as a public utility has been explicitly made in U.S. legal and political philosophy
While the general public views elections as purely governmental and political parties as private organizations, a prominent school of thought in antitrust and election law argues that the infrastructure of democracy should be treated exactly like electrical grids, water lines, or railroads.
Legal scholars and political scientists have used the "public utility" framework to argue against the political duopoly in several key ways:
1. The "Public Utility" Law Review Framework The most notable formalization of this argument comes from legal scholars who study the "Law of Democracy." Academics like Samuel Issacharoff and Richard Pildes famously pioneered the “political markets” approach to election law. [1] They argue that the Democratic and Republican parties have successfully built a "duopoly" that uses the power of the state to lock out competitors. Scholars advocating for the public utility model argue that because the state grants the two major parties exclusive access to primary elections (which are funded by taxpayers), ballot lines, and debate stages, the primary process itself functions as a natural monopoly. Therefore, just as the government regulates a private electric company to ensure it doesn't abuse its monopoly power, the state has a duty to regulate the primary process to ensure open, non-discriminatory access for all voters and candidates.
2. The "Political Duopoly" and Public Infrastructure In business, a public utility is an entity that provides an indispensable service, requires massive infrastructure that is impossible for a newcomer to replicate, and is prone to a "natural monopoly." Reformers argue that the U.S. election system perfectly matches this definition: • The Infrastructure: Ballot access laws, signature verification software, public television broadcast rights, and voter registration rolls are the "pipes and wires" of democracy.