A Defense of the Two-Party System

[Benderino]

Can anyone provide for me any excellent sources for a research paper in defense of America's two-party political system? In fact, even counter arguments would be good.

I'll start the debate off here and that can spurn some ideas. Personally, I have no problem with the system. It creates stability and continuity. It promotes centrism (as opposed to radicalism) and it is more efficient than other democratic models. Agree? Disagree? Got any historical points that can help bring home your point? Smashing!

 

[Sims2789]

A two-party state does not promote centrism, as can be seen with the current state of the United States. The two-party state makes it too easy for one party to overwhelm the other by scaring the populace and installing either a radical government or a theo-fascist one, among other types. For an example of the latter, look to the current United States.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Multiparty systems actually cater far better to extremist groups, as some seats will ultimately go to non-mainstream parties, forcing mainstream parties to give into their demands in order to be able to form a stable government.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

A two-party state does not promote centrism, as can be seen with the current state of the United States. The two-party state makes it too easy for one party to overwhelm the other by scaring the populace and installing either a radical government or a theo-fascist one, among other types. For an example of the latter, look to the current United States.

No, the Republican party is not run by radicals in any relative sense of the term. The current agenda of the Republican party is in line with the beliefs of most of its members; it is "mainstream" within the context of the American political spectrum.

 

[storealex]

If there's only two parties, many people vote for the lesser of two evils, instead of voting for a party they actually like.

 

[Benderino]

America has never had it's strong Communist or Fascist movement because it only allows for two, central parties. Crazy radicals don't succeed here as they had in Germany, France, Italy, etc. The (relative) two-party system has been working well for Britain for a few centuries now.

I like it though...keep it coming!

 

[Benderino]

If there's only two parties, many people vote for the lesser of two evils, instead of voting for a party they actually like.

That's true, but people shouldn't like CommieFascists (pick your poison).

 

[SeleucusNicator]

If there's only two parties, many people vote for the lesser of two evils, instead of voting for a party they actually like.

Yes; since people are forced to compromise, there is very little hope for extremist movements.

The United States is a nation built on several compromises; it is an inherent part of our political nature, something that we view as good.

 

[Ian Beale]

If there are two main parties it makes coalition governments less likely. In the UK it is a choice between the Tories and Labour;it means smaller parties aren't able to gain disproportionate influence in the decision making process, something i think is a good thing.

 

[ComradeDavo]

To me, the more parties there are the more choice people have, and choice is key to democracy.

The (relative) two-party system has been working well for Britain for a few centuries now.

The power base used to be like this - Conservative and Liberals as 2 main parties. Then along caim Labour. World war happened. 3 way coalition government. Afterwards, Labour pushed the Liberals back into third, then it became 2 'main' parties once more. Now, the Lib Dems are on the rise and it is becoming 3 parties again.

Anyway, Britain is very much a 3 way system. The Lib Dems are on the rise and a strong force in both local and national politics (it has even been said that the Tory party is in danger of literally dying out because of the average age of alot of it's members being over 65).

 

[YNCS]

When the Confederacy was established in 1861, the Southern politicians made a point of not establishing political parties. In the crisis of war, Southerners professed to regard this lack as a source of strength. They claimed they were not divided by partisan dissentions, but instead their political leaders were guided by a sense of national unity.

However, the reality was quite different. Where parties do not exist, criticism of the administration is a purely individual matter; so the tone of criticism is likely to be negative, carping, and petty. This certainly was true in the Confederacy. But where there are parties, the opposition group is strongly impelled to formulate real alternative policies and to press for these policies on a constructive basis. The "Loyal Opposition" can not only tell the voters that the administration is following mistaken policies, but can lay out other options for the electorate to consider.

Just as a historical note, in the 1863 Confederate congressional elections, the voters delivered a sharp rebuke to the administration and to many of its principal political critics. In short, only about 40% of the incumbents were relected.

 

[Godwynn]

What about people like me? We would be forced to pick a party that only represents half of us. The more parties, the better.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

This very much depends upon the overall 2-party system. If congress could make any law with a 51% vote and the President could back it up totally, then that would be a very bad system with laws swinging every few years.

The US has a good system with 3 distinct and generally equally powerful branches. First, the Filibuster in the Senate ensures that even though only 51% need to vote for something, it really takes 60% to ensure there is not a Filibuster. Even when Congress and the President try to make a law, the Supreme Court can overrule it. The Supreme Court can only be overruled by a 75% vote (Congress - House & Senate, and the States) to make an Amendment to the Constitution.

For better or worse, the great thing about a two-party system is that the Moores and Limbaughs of the world are muted. With the US system in the Senate, either party is absolutely forced to work with the other party to avoid a filibuster, which makes all legislation centrist no matter who is in power. (Of course, if either party gets 60 seats in the Senate that will change things greatly, but if they control that much it is probably the will of the people, for better or worse. My guess is more centrist party members would revolt even then as has been seen in the past.)

In a multi-party system a center party generally gives overwhelming concensions to a left/right party to form a coalition. Better on paper, generally worse in practice. Again, depends upon how their system is set up.

Many Europeans would say the US is to far to the right under Bush43 and say the two-party system is why, but remember, it is generally in the center for its peoples beliefs. Bush43 and the Republicans are kept in check under our system. All radical ideas were either stopped with a filibuster in the Senate or by a Supreme Court ruling.

 

[Ancient Grudge]

The power base used to be like this - Conservative and Liberals as 2 main parties. Then along caim Labour. World war happened. 3 way coalition government. Afterwards, Labour pushed the Liberals back into third, then it became 2 'main' parties once more. Now, the Lib Dems are on the rise and it is becoming 3 parties again.

Anyway, Britain is very much a 3 way system. The Lib Dems are on the rise and a strong force in both local and national politics (it has even been said that the Tory party is in danger of literally dying out because of the average age of alot of it's members being over 65).

Well it really starter out as the Tories and the Whigs and after a succession fo reform bills noticeably the Great Reform Bill of 1832 and 1867 forced the parties to become what we see them as today.

The reason for the rise of the Labour party can not be solely put down to the First World War. Two major reasons where firstly the 1885 redistrubtion of seats Act which producded constituencies based upon class and secondly linked to this was the Liberals refusal to allow many working class MP's which lead them to rejecting Kiere Hardie the first Labour MP and PM.

Also the split during the first world war but that was caused by the First World War but the tensions between Asquith and Lloyd George could of come to the fore anyway and caused a split.

Anyway i digress just thought i'd feel in the smallest amount of detail

I dont think you can count having 56? MP's a rise for the Liberals and anyway our system does not allow for three big parties if you look at several elections in the 1920's when labour and the liberals where vivying for position you can see that in one case the Liberals actually beat Labour in the popular vote bu about 0.2% but still managed to lag behind by 50 seats.

The Liberals in my oppinion will not become the second party until people become hugely disaffected by Labour. But I really can't see this happening.

The Liberals hold the position bewteen left adn right so are squeezed on both sides because people who might vote for them would vote Conservative or Labour to simply keep the other major party out.

So i disagree Britain isn't a three party system in my view it's a two party system.

 

[Mise]

You're both wrong. It's a one party system.

 

[JohnRM]

A two-party state does not promote centrism, as can be seen with the current state of the United States. The two-party state makes it too easy for one party to overwhelm the other by scaring the populace and installing either a radical government or a theo-fascist one, among other types. For an example of the latter, look to the current United States.

Frighteningly, I generally agree with Sims.

 

[JohnRM]

America has never had it's strong Communist or Fascist movement because it only allows for two, central parties. Crazy radicals don't succeed here as they had in Germany, France, Italy, etc. The (relative) two-party system has been working well for Britain for a few centuries now.

I like it though...keep it coming!

That is somewhat innacurrate. The reason that the United States has never had a strong Communist or Facist movement is because the country was founded on strong democratic tradition whereas most of the aforementioned European nations were founded on less admirable forms of governance. The people of Europe had gone through many domestic wars that diverted attention from homeland displeasures and maintained the need for greater nationalist feelings, which we know ultimately leads to blind allegiance to your government. Afterall, the primary interest of all human beings is self-preservation. To hold power and maintain control, all that you have to do is create a threat to the people and convince them that you will protect them from it. However that is somewhat off-topic. The point is that the United States was founded based on modern ideas and governing ethics which has allowed us to maintain the kind stability that we enjoy today. What you may notice is that with every war that we encounter, we lose a little bit more of our sovereign ability to determine our own futures, as individuals. During such wars as the Civil War, World War II, and even with 9/11, we encounter new laws and changes to our system, which generally weaken our rights and strengthen the hold that the government has over our daily lives. These changes include things such as the PATRIOT Act, the Income Tax -- Lincoln was able to suspend the rights of citizens when riots broke out in New York City, during the Civil War as George Bush has done to several Americans and and hundreds, perhaps thousands of foreign nationals.

What is more is that Communism and Facism ruled in a time without movie cameras and news at the speed of light. What people like Hitler, Stalin, and others had done in those times could not be done today due to the fact that a camera is always there to catch it. Even so, it is not like the United States has not done wrong. It is just that we have a good grip on what hits the news and how. Issues such as depleted uranium, agent orange, the internment of Japanese-Americans, the slaughter of the native tribes of America, and so on seemed not so bad when slanted in the right manner.

 

[Timko]

One bad thing about 2 parties is that when it comes round to election time you hear very little about the good things each party offers and lots and lots about the bad things the other party offers. It's no wonder it feels like voting for the lesser of two evils, when both sides portray the other as such.

 

[King Alexander]

Can anyone provide for me any excellent sources for a research paper in defense of America's two-party political system? In fact, even counter arguments would be good.

Unfortunately, I can't, but I'll offer a few points, anyway

I'll start the debate off here and that can spurn some ideas. Personally, I have no problem with the system. It creates stability and continuity.

What makes you to think that there isn't any "stability and continuity" where multiple political parties exist?

Do the other western countries(except the U.S) lack stability and continuity?
Thing is, that the all these countries do indeed have the "usual" major two parties, but there're also some small parties in the parliaments, which, although they haven't much political power/influence on decisions, they offer, however, a critical thinking for the sceptical citizen.

These small parties could be wrong on their beliefs, but they help you to understand better your own position about why you support one of the 2 major parties, because one thinks more and better if there're more "opinions" around.

Of course, the small parties could be right in many cases, because they're NOT "the goverment" and have much less "interests" to gain, so, many times, they make a constructive criticism, and this can help the the sceptical(using constructive thinking) citizen, to care more about what his own party does, and "judge" his party better, which in return leeds to be good for the party he supports, as well as for the country itself.

It promotes centrism (as opposed to radicalism) and it is more efficient than other democratic models. Agree? Disagree? Got any historical points that can help bring home your point? Smashing!

The point of Democracy is not to reduce the "voices/opinions" from the various political parties. What really is the difference from only 2 political parties instead of only 1? Sure, 1 party is authoritarian by nature, but 2 parties only reduce authoritazation to a certain extent and no more than than that.

See it like this(example): we now are on an Internet forum, and we see really many different opinions/views by many people around the world, as well as many different opinions/views from the U.S citizens themselves.
Don't you think that it helps one a lot when he hears many different arguements/opinions?
It certainly makes one think about ideas raised here, that he couldn't possibly think by himself if he only "spoke" with only 1 person.

 

[Scuffer]

There is no reason why a two party system could not produce extremist views. With only 2 parties, they are simply locked in head to head fight, and never have to consider any third party views. Having 3 or more parties makes it more likely that a extreme party would have the largest share of the vote, but massively reduces the chance of an extreme partry getting an actual majority.