Advantages of a Two-Party System - Case Study Example

Two-Party System in the United s: Pros and Cons of Advantages of a Two Party System The “continuous competition between the Republican and the Democrats for over 140 years has given the United States party system a two-party character.”1 These two parties struggle against each other to have a hold over political ranks—“presidency, Congress, governorships, and state legislatures”.2 Many believe that this provides the country a number of benefits which will not materialize had there been other parties to share the citizen’s support with. There may be shortcomings; yet its advocates believe that they are of little significance and do not pose a threat to the stability enjoyed by the country today. Thomas Magstadt asserts that continuity is ensured by the system itself, “as the two major parties keep to the middle of the road to appeal to a broad range of middle-class interests,”3 hence the preservation of political and governmental stability. As we may notice, Republicans and Democrats seem to uphold comparable ideals when the interest of the American population as a whole is concerned, only that they do not share the same opinion as to who are most appropriate to be bestowed the right of governance. Upon declaration of the winning candidates in an election, cries of deception are hardly evident unlike in some countries where political parties exist in multitude and demonstrate hostility against one another. There is more assurance to a majority consensus given the fact that there are only two options available and a “clear-cut choice between groups standing for opposing policies.”4 If there are other parties, then elected officials do not necessarily get majority of the votes; thus, what came about is not to be considered national unity. Another reason that gives favor to the two-party competition lies in the conviction that it is “the simplest and likeliest way to have an effective democratic government.”5 In a country that upholds democracy, all citizens are granted equal share in the decisions that affect their lives. There is no point making a choice when there is no sufficient information to serve as a common ground. In the presence of many prospective governing groups, people can have a hard time monitoring qualifications, performances, and credibility among aspects that must be look into before a ballot is filled out. In a country as large and varied as the United States, a multi-party system would be likely to produce paralysis of government at the national level.”6 Similarly, the ruling party is openly held accountable for overseeing the government7; that should incumbent officials fail in their undertakings or rather fall short of expectations, they are bound to devise approaches that can ameliorate the situation. In this case, it is safe to assume that the general welfare is put on top priority and corruption, although not completely brought to an end, is at least kept to a minimal degree. People will simply go the other direction in the instance of dissatisfaction, and this is what the party in power works hard to avoid. The other party serving as its critic is compelled to instigate remonstrations when dishonesty in the service is observed. They keep a watchful eye on proceedings that do not coincide with the constitutional provisions, and needless to say, hope for a better political standing in the future. In result, power is dispersed accordingly, and any attempt to replace the democratic structure of the government is constantly impeded. The absence of monarchists and Marxists as real choices in most American elections seems an acceptable price for the advantages of the two-party system.”8 The United States is a country of liberalism—a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. A form of power that is vested upon a single person by birthright9, and the principle that actions and human institutions are economically determined10 will only lead to insurrections from the citizens who believe that nothing is more just and reasonable than democracy. Weaknesses of a Two-Party System Two party systems are not legally or constitutionally limited to two parties. Minor parties, or third parties as they are popularly called, such as the Constitution party, Green Party, and Libertarian Party “can and do exist, although in the United States, they have had little or no impact on elections.”11 As discussed in the above section, the central power to elect political leaders in the United States is in the hands of the Republicans and Democrats, and those that negate such a system are either discontented with the manner governmental affairs are handled by both parties, or they feel marginalised by it. “Minority points of view, particularly the views of relatively small minorities proposing changes that challenge current orthodoxies, do get less representation than they would under a multi-party system.”12 The ruling party tends not to take into consideration the proposals from a third party, thus democracy is not actually exercised. Separation of power is constrained; the possibility of an agenda that surpasses all the rest and promises realization of the common good is overlooked. People can only decide on two options; thus when neither appears favourable, those directly involved are also left with two solutions: to readily adjust to the changes or suffer the consequences. It is also argued that the two major parties have the propensity to meet in the middle and hardly ever encourage developments that are not conventional. This can leave the country in despair as “certain special circumstances trigger the emergency of the most demonstrative and effective third parties.”13 Republicans and Democrats may be hesitant to implement policies that are notably distinct from what is customary to elude chances of political turmoil, therefore competition is not optimized, while the absence of a third choice exacerbate the circumstances. Instead of making efforts to arrive at the best decision after all possible alternatives are exhausted, their main concern is directed towards sustaining their truce. In a national survey conducted by the University of Michigan, it was determined that most Americans would now like to see additional parties competing in elections, however, our particular voting system has doomed these efforts to failure.14 Every so often, voters feel the inadequacy of the Democratic and Republican parties “to reflect the wide spectrum of interests and sentiment of both the public and some political leaders.”15 The people in this modern time would rather make certain that they made the right decision by exploring all information available than join the band wagon and abide by the popular liking. “The dominant position of the two major parties is reflected in the operation of the Federal Election Campaign Act”, 16 which bestows them special benefits. The benefits consist of “the federal matching funds for presidential candidates seeking party nominations, federal grants for holding national conventions, and public funding at the maximum level in general election campaigns for president.”17 This setting gives very little chance for third party candidates to win any election, more so in pursuit of a position in the national office. There were only two third-party members who made it to the Senate—Joseph Isadore Lieberman and Bernie Sanders, and none to the House of Representatives during the last election. Additionally, the only presidents without a major party affiliation were Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909) of the Bull Moose Party and Millard Fillmore (1850-1853) of the Whig Party. Nevertheless, their ascent to the highest position in the government is not an outcome of a standard election but of the sudden death of their predecessors. This goes to say that the course of history could have changed; yet it is an acceptable truth that a two-party system is neither an absolute embodiment of a unified preference nor an act of democracy in a country of diverse social predilection as the United States. Notes 1. Quoted in John F.Bibby, Brian F. Schaffner. "Characteristics of the American Party System." In Politics, Parties, and Elections in America, 6th Edition, (Massachussetts: Thomson Learning, Inc., 2008), 57. 2. Ibid. 3. Quoted in Thomas M. Magstadt, Understanding Politics: Ideas, Institutions, and Issues. (California: Cengage Learning, 2006), 377 4. Leon D. Epstein, Political Parties in Western Democracies (New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 2000), 58. 5. Ibid. 6. Quoted in A. James Reichley, The Life of the Parties: A History of American Political Parties, (Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1992), 343. 7. Leon D. Epstein, Political Parties in Western Democracies (New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 2000), 57. 8. Quoted in A. James Reichley, The Life of the Parties: A History of American Political Parties, (Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1992), 343. 9. The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia® Copyright © 2007, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Columbia University Press. All rights reserved. www.cc.columbia.edu/cu/cup/. 10. Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003 http://www.thefreedictionary.com/marxism. 11. Quoted in Thomas M. Magstadt, Understanding Politics: Ideas, Institutions, and Issues. (California: Cengage Learning, 2006), 377 12. Quoted in A. James Reichley, The Life of the Parties: A History of American Political Parties, (Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1992), 343. 13. Samuel James Eldersveld,Hanes Walton, Political Parties in American Society, Second Edition (Massachusetts: Stanford Publishing Services, Inc., 2000), 71. 14. Ibid. 15. Ibid. 16. Quoted in John F.Bibby, Brian F. Schaffner. "Characteristics of the American Party System." In Politics, Parties, and Elections in America, 6th Edition, (Massachussetts: Thomson Learning, Inc., 2008), 57. 17. Ibid. Bibliography Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003 http://www.thefreedictionary.com/marxism. Epstein, Leon D. Political Parties in Western Democracies. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 2000. Eldersveld, Samuel James & Walton, Hanes. Political Parties in American Society, Second Edition Massachusetts: Stanford Publishing Services, Inc., 2000. John F.Bibby, Brian F. Schaffner. "Characteristics of the American Party System." In Politics, Parties, and Elections in America, 6th Edition, by Brian F. Schaffner John F.Bibby, 57. Massachussetts: Thomson Learning, Inc., 2008. Magstadt, Thomas M. Understanding Politics: Ideas, Institutions, and Issues. California: Cengage Learning, 2006. Reichley, A. James. The Life of the Parties: A History of American Political Parties. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1992. The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia® Copyright © 2007, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Columbia University Press. All rights reserved. www.cc.columbia.edu/cu/cup/. Read More