I got a lot of feedback on last week's column about how small business owners and entrepreneurs should vote in the presidential election in November.

You will recall that I gave two suggestions for small business owners who haven't decided who to vote for:

—Focus on a party and its platform, not on individual candidates.

—Focus on your local candidates for Congress and Senate, as the decisions those officials make will have a broader impact on your day-to-day operations than those of the president.

Most emails were positive, but a handful of people said that I dodged the bullet by not coming out one way or another for a major party candidate. The general message was: "Dude, I can't see myself voting for Trump or Clinton, but I don't like the idea of not voting at all. What are YOU going to do in November?"

Like any good politician, who wants as many votes as possible, I really don't like taking sides in political contests. No matter which way I'd go, I'd risk alienating a sizeable part of my audience, which would think I'm an idiot simply because I don't agree with them. But in college, I majored in history, not political science. If you take a more long-term view of our current political situation, the answer to "What do I do in November?" becomes clearer, I think.

Throughout history, the American people have been blessed when it comes to politics. For the past 240 years, we have been ruled by two political parties, each of which has spoken for a vast swath of the American public with different and sometimes conflicting viewpoints (for the longest time, the Democratic Party was home to both African-Americans and white Southerners). No single party had a monopoly on liberal or conservative views.

While there were extreme elements to each party, the focus was always on the broad center of the American people who didn't hold strong views one way or the other. While there were some close elections, one party was almost always able to cobble together a majority. Third parties were always on the fringe and failed to gain traction, even with charismatic candidates like Theodore Roosevelt and Robert La Follette.

Additionally, politicians of both parties came from the same social class and ethnic background and shared a common culture — they were all virtually white Judeo-Christian males of northern-European heritage. In situations where the two parties held significantly different positions, party leaders would caucus over gin-and-tonics or martinis, compare their Ivy League ties, reach a compromise, do some horse trading and move forward. It wasn't perfect, but heck, it got things done.

Today, in the words of Irish poet William Butler Yeats, "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold". Both major parties are controlled by their extremist wings, and the common WASP-centric culture that used to bridge the political divide has fragmented into the multicultural mess of identity politics. While they're all senators, Mitch McConnell, Elizabeth Warren, Ted Cruz and Cory Booker come from very different universes. We cannot reasonably expect them to communicate, much less cooperate or compromise.

I think there's a good chance that after this election we will see a major restructuring, if not an end, of the two-party system in America. If I am correct, I see two potential outcomes for American politics going forward: a landslide sweep by one party (similar to the Democrats' win in 1933) that will effectively make America a single-party state like China for the next few decades; or further fragmentation that will lead to the rise of viable third parties clamoring for a piece of the American center.

Given the choice, I would much prefer the second outcome.

Rather than the three broadcast networks we baby-boom geezers grew up with as kids, we now have thousands of cable TV channels and internet video streamers tailoring content to ever-narrower audiences. Similarly, it may be time to encourage the development of multiple political parties in the U.S. with a more pluralistic outlook on the issues facing our nation, and the world.

I write this with sadness, and not a little trepidation. Just looking at European history, we can see how difficult it is for countries with multiple political parties to achieve political and social stability. Small splinter parties can exercise an influence that's totally out of proportion to their numbers. In the German parliamentary elections of 1933, one very small party (with only about 8 percent of the popular vote) allied itself with Adolf Hitler's National Socialist German Workers' Party (which only had about 44 percent of the popular vote) and threw Germany under the boot heels of the Nazis.

Yet, in an increasingly fragmented America, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for two major parties to bring enough people under the tent to sustain consistent majorities in national elections.

So, given this prediction, what should you do in November? The answer will come next week.

Cliff Ennico ([email protected]) is a syndicated columnist, author and former host of the PBS television series "Money Hunt." This column is no substitute for legal, tax or financial advice, which can be furnished only by a qualified professional licensed in your state. To find out more about Cliff Ennico and other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit our Web page at www.creators.com.