Lesson 37: Why Has the Two-Party System Endured?
In this lesson, we will look at the historical foundations of the two-party
system and learn about how our presidential election system favors two parties.
We will also look at state and federal laws that make it difficult for third
parties to compete. Finally, we will discuss the role and impact of third
parties and the increasing number of people who identify with neither of the
two major parties.
From early in
our history, the country has been divided on significant issues. Ratifying the
Constitution was one of those issues. Slavery was another. When the country is
divided on major issues, two parties serve to mobilize opposing views.
Children learn about being Republican or Democrat at a young age. They grow up
identifying with one of the two parties. If they want to seek political office,
normally they consider one of the two parties as the only realistic chance of
getting elected.
Our voting process is based on Plurality. To win, a candidate needs a number of
votes that is greater than the number of votes for any other candidate, but not
necessarily a majority.
The candidate who wins gets everything while the candidate who comes in
second walks away with nothing. This makes our plurality-based election system
a winter-take-all system.
The Electoral College is a group of persons, called electors,
selected by the voters in
each state. This group officially elects the president and the vice president
of the United States.
When the states vote,
the Unit Rule is utilized. That rule establishes that all of a state's
electoral votes are cast for the presidential candidate who receives a
plurality of the votes in that state.
Minor parties are clearly disadvantaged in
this system. Voters do not typically vote for minor candidates because they
know they will not win any electoral votes.
In parts of Europe, countries have a system where two or more parties can form
a coalition to choose their prime minister. In the United States, there is no
opportunity for a coalition. It is either one party or the other. The
winner-take-all principle works against the participation of a third party.
Some of the states use a system for deciding how many signatures a party needs
to enter a candidate into a race for political office. In a system that
punishes minor parties, they are required to obtain more signatures than the
two major parties because the number is based on the total votes they received
in the last election.
On the national level, minor parties face other challenges. Committee
assignments are only given to one of the two parties. In order to sit in a
seat, a minor-party candidate has to choose a major party. Also, the Federal
Election Committee (FEC) only provides matching funds to the two major parties.
With all of the challenges that third parties face, why do they still exist?
When a group differs politically from
the major parties, creating a new party serves a couple of purposes. First of
all, it allows supporters of the new party to bond due to their ideological
similarity.
It also has a psychological effect. Supporters of the third-party are not
dissuaded from continuing in the political process if they do not get many
votes because they are not thinking in terms of winning, but rather fighting
for change that may some day happen. The Libertarian Party and the Green Party
are examples of third parties that exist today.
A Splinter Party is a new party formed by a dissident faction within a major
political party. Often, splinter parties have emerged when a particular
personality was at odds with the major party.
Even though minor parties have practically no way of winning, they can still
have an impact in two significant ways. For one, they can force major party
candidates to look at certain issues. For example, the success of the Reform
Party in the 1990s resulted in both the Democratic and Republican Parties
taking up the Reform Party's core issues – balancing the budget and reforming
the federal government.
Another way minor parties can make a difference is they can pull votes from one
candidate, helping the other. This is called the "spoiler effect“ and can
greatly influence an election. An example of this is the 2000 election, where
Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader may have taken votes from
Democrat Al Gore.
As the two opposing parties seem to get further apart politically,
more voters are starting to identify as independent.
Party Identification is linking oneself to a particular political party.
Straight-Ticket Voting is voting exclusively for the candidates of one party.
Straight Ticket voting was universal at one time, but split ticket voting
started gaining popularity when voters began to seek balance in the government.
According to polls, only about 10% of voters are
actual independents, even though the number who identify themselves as
independents is much higher. The fact is that even though they may identify as
independents, most of them tend to lean towards Democrat or Republican.