The Case against the Two-Party System
Abstract
In the United States, the Republicans and Democrats have represented the two major political parties in modern times. Since the vast majority of the American public has expressed unhappiness with Congress for decades, the idea that the country is ripe for a third-party has been more and more up for discussion. Although there are many who believe that the two-party system has served the nation well, mainly in regards to streamlining the political process to make it easier for Americans to understand it as well as the ease with which it promotes a very pro-American “we versus them” mindset. However, there is a great deal of hostility and division between the parties and very little bipartisanship that begs the question: is the US ready for a third party or parties? The possibilities of such a move are discussed, in view of the thesis that the two-party system is detrimental to the United States.
When the subject of the two-party system in America arises, most Americans say that both the Democrat and Republican parties are performing so horrendously in representing their constituents that it is necessary to form a new third party. The current two-party system keeps the American people divided and distracted (Washington Blog, 2011). Two of our founding fathers specifically expressed warnings about the dangers posed by two party system. According to John Adams, “there is nothing which I dread so much as it is the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposite to each other… This is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution” (Washington Blog, 2011). Likewise, George Washington had frequent warnings about the future of a two-party system. This paper will explore the pros and cons of a two-party system, supporting the thesis that the two-party system has become a detriment to the future of democracy in the United States.
Granted, many people have made the case that the two-party system has been beneficial to the country, in terms of streamlining the political process to make it easier for the population to understand the dynamics of the political system. Also, it cultivates a very pro-American mindset that is grounded in the principle of us versus them, thus reinforcing a coherence in attitudes about being Americans. What may be the most cogent argument for the two-party system is that most likely, everyone will get his or her way every four or eight years because the election outcomes tend to be cyclical (Learn Liberty, 2008).
On the other hand, having the two-party system entrenched in US society perpetuates a false notion that the United States government is not controlled by a single top-secret monolithic political organization made up of the world’s most powerful elites (Learn Liberty, 2008). Also, many people believe that the two-party system unfairly minimizes options available to lobbyists. Finally, having a two-party system tends to inhibit voter turnout because turnout is usually much higher in dictatorships that only offer a single party.
A powerful argument against the two-party system was written by Michael Coblenz in The Hill in 2016, containing the belief that the two-party system is destroying the nation, and that Democrats and Republicans are in a death match with the American people caught in the middle (Coblenz, 2016). The point made is that because the United States is currently facing a wide range of serious problems including income equality and international terrorism, all of those issues are hampered by the antagonistic fight between Republicans and Democrats that for the most part has brought the government to a standstill. Congressional members of both parties usually have so much animus towards each other that they are unable to work together at all, or even speak to each other. The inability to work together even on the most minor issues as close members of one party to believe that the other colleagues in the other party are treasonous and intentionally acting in ways that will harm the national security of the country. Recently, Pew conducted a survey that demonstrated that 36% of Republicans believe that liberal policy are “a threat to the nation’s well-being” (Coblenz, 2016). Conversely, a quarter of Democrats believed same about the other party. There is a wide consensus that each party believes that the other side is more focused on partisan victories instead of the common good for American citizens. Many of the most extreme partisan politicians will absolutely not work at all with the other side. As a result, both sides are perceived as holding each other in Washington in a kind of death grip that is unbreakable, even for the purposes of acting in the good of the nation.
The American public appears to be sick of all the bipartisan hostility, since 80% of the public disapprove of Congress according to many polls. That is why so many Americans opted to vote for third party candidates in the 2016 election, Jill Greene representing the Green Party, Bernie Sanders representing the Democratic Socialist Party, and Donald Trump ultimately representing a branch of the Republican Party. Those candidates were able to attract enough voters to swing the election towards Donald Trump, and although that was not the desired outcome of most Americans, a significant number representing his base of 34% absolutely put their faith in this third-party promise to disrupt all of the political and institutional norms in the country.
Perhaps the solution lies in the way that people are elected in the US. In the past there were viable third parties in US elections, and a few, such as the Republicans and the Whigs, ultimately became the most influential party in politics. Still others, such as the Progressives and the Abolitionists, raised important new ideas that entered the national debate and ultimately helped to change the course of American history.
In those days, there were multi-seat congressional districts that could have two or more elected representatives (Coblenz, 2016). This system allowed some candidates to receive as little as 10% of the vote to be elected. This permitted candidates that were from lesser-known parties to gain office, which allowed these groups to accumulate political traction and eventually win the right to participate significantly in the national debate. Currently, there are single-seat districts that have winner-take-all elections which tend to support parties that can accumulate large coalitions that contain more than 50% of the electorate. This system undoubtedly favors having the two-party system.
There is substantial evidence that many Americans would like to have more political parties involved in the system, following the European model where many different parties are able to compete in national elections. In those countries, the party that wins the most votes will is able to retain the largest number of representatives in the parliament, whereas the parties who lost are still represented but in lower numbers. The US system should seriously consider a change in a two-party system since it does not appear to be working in a way that supports the voting system here.
References
Coblenz, M. (2016, January 28). The two-party system is destroying America.
Future of Working. (2018). 9 Advantages and Disadvantages of the Two- Party System.
Learned Liberty. (2008, January 30). The Pros and Cons of the Two-Party System.
Washington’s Block. (2011, July 7). The founding fathers tried to warn us about the threat from a two-party system.
