“The United States is a representative democracy,” according to the USCIS website. The United States has been through a series of several political reforms since its independence. Despite, minor parties– namely Libertarian, Green , Socialist, Natural Law, Constitution Parties– participate actively in the U.S. presidential election, two major parties–Democrats and Republicans– have historically proved to be the most powerful parties in the U.S. Regardless of having the rights to all third-party politicians to run for offices under a two-party system, all time defeat of the third-party in a presidential election is traditionally the outcome since the civil war. This shows that a two-party system of the U.S. dates back centuries for the presidential election. However, 30 Senators, 112 Representatives , and 28 governors have been elected from parties other than the major parties, Democrats and Republicans, after the end of the Reconstruction era ( Dec 8, 1863 – Mar 31, 1877). Similarly, 144 Libertarian Party members, 139 Greens, and 26 Constitution Party officials hold offices at a local level in 2016. Interestingly, one can see a significant number of presidential candidates from the third parties and independent candidates, such as Donald Leon Blankenship from the Constitution Party, Bill Hammons from the Unity Party of America, Kanye Omari West as an independent candidate for a presidency, even for the 2020 election. While the incumbent Donald Trump as the Republican’s presumptive nominee has been going to run against the former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, a Democratic presumptive nominee, in the 2020 United States presidential election. Given that the United States being a multi-party system with its unique historical background, she functions as a de facto two-party system in a presidential election–electing each and every candidates of the president either from the Democratic or from the Republican party since 1852 and not making unable to win even a single president from the third-party.
Republican party since 1852 and not making unable to win even a single president from the third-party.
Initially, in one side, Americans are either a patriot or an orthodox or a supporter of revolution or not, before and during the American Revolutionary War. Even after the American Revolution, the first U.S. President, George Washington, never affiliates with any political parties–firmly sticking with the vision of the drafters of the U.S. constitution. However, political factions or parties arises in the U.S. during the debate over the the question of how powerful the federal government would be– while ratifying the federal Constitution of 1787. As a result, the first political division of Americans comes into play in the form of the Federalists–leading by Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton, advocating a strong central government with the ratification of the Constitution, and favoring the commercial sector of the country — and the anti-Federalists (Democratic-Republican Party )–leading by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, supporting states’ rights instead of centralized power and facilitating an agrarian society. Over the course of time, the Federalist Party ultimately falls down after 1815. Despite the Democratic-Republican Party became progressively popular and powerful, it breaks off into additional factions after the 1824 presidential election—lacking an effective opposition. In this case, one faction merges into the Democratic Party–favoring General Andrew Jackson, while the other faction is then known as National Republic Party supporting the president John Quincy Adams– which again unites with the Whig party. Since the Whigs faces a decisive loss in the 1852 presidential election because of the inter-party sectional divisions, the Whigs also suffers from the disease of faction given the movement of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854, which cancels the Missouri Compromise–allowing each territory to be a slave or slave-free state for itself. As a consequence– by the 1850s– majority of the Northern Whigs finally joins the anti-slavery Republican Party, while the most Southern Whigs consolidate with the Native American Party and then into the Constitutional Union Party. In this way, the Democratic Party is established in 1828 ( the majority of Democrats are initially in favor of slavery, but not all.) with its first President Andrew Jackson in 1829, and the Republican Party (the Republican Party is established by ex-Democrats and ex-Whigs who are against slavery) is formed in 1854 as an anti-slavery party with its first President Abraham Lincoln in 1861. On the other hand, there have been numerous minor parties in the United States, like Libertarian Party, Green Party, Socialist Party, Natural Law Party, Constitution Party etc–which have won minor offices sporadically at the state and local level. The third-party candidates for the presidency, such as Theodore Roosevelt in the 1912 election, Ross Perot in the 1992 election, Ralph Nader in the election year 2000 have drawn special attention in the U.S. presidential election. Up to now, the 1912 presidential result with Roosevelt as the third-party candidacy is the most successful and quite noteworthy in American history, winning 27.4% of the popular vote and performing six states yielding 88 electoral votes–splitting the Republican vote, which ultimately leads to a result in favor of Woodrow Wilson (Democratic nominee). Consequently, a two-party system in the U.S. has been a political tradition in the presidential election.
Over the course of time, the Federalist Party ultimately falls down after 1815.
Despite the existence of dozens of active third parties in the United States, the modern political tradition in the U.S. is a two-party system dominated by the Democrats and the Republicans , winning the title of the presidents, the Congress, the governorships and the state legislature since 1852. So, there is a couple of reasons why the structure of the electoral system for Congress is primarily responsible for the two-party system into being. First, U.S. elections are basically rooted on the “first-past-the-post (FPTP)”, also known as plurality voting, which is also based on the belief that the candidate who receives the most votes wins, whether or not s/he gains the majority of the total votes cast. For example, under the 19th quadrennial presidential election, Abraham Lincoln wins the presidency in 1860 despite evidently lacking majority support given the number of candidates fighting for race–in a four-way contest for the presidency: Lincoln from Republicans; two Democrats, one from the northern wing of the party and the other from the southern wing; and a member of the newly formed southern party –Constitutional Union Party, which is intended to save the nation from dividing over the issue of slavery. Finally Lincoln becomes the president, gaining about 40% of the vote even without receiving a majority (51 percent or greater) of the total votes cast. However, he has received more votes than the other three competing candidates that is sufficient to identify him as a victor in a democracy and thus elect him as the president with a plurality of votes under the system of the Electoral College. Second, the effect of the winner-takes-all nature of FPTP makes the chance of winning the election far remote for the third-party candidates. To the the winner-takes-all election rules: all of the electoral votes from a particular state are awarded to a candidate of the presidency if the presidential candidate gets the most votes in that specific state. Since FPTP principle applies to the 48 out of 50 states and the District of Columbia, except for Maine and Nebraska, third parties are unconditionally blocked off of national offices. Thirdly, it might be due to historical influences because the history of American politics tends to take two side, federalists and anti-federalists, which begins while debating over the American Constitution. Fourthly, since most voters realize that third parties/minor parties have no real chance of winning even a single office under the winner-take-all elections, voters themselves are compelled to choose a candidates either from Republicans or Democrats to support a probable winner of the election. Consequently, all above-discussed factors make difficult for small political parties to win elections in the U.S. under a plurality voting system or a single-winner voting system.
Furthermore, the U.S. is functioning as if it is of two-party system despite she is apparently a multi-party country. But the structure of the electoral system imparting majority of its votes to only two vital parties has certain benefits and costs associated it. In one side, a two-party system encourages the political stability and decisiveness in government, which helps to achieve the economic growth and development in the nation–so does the U.S. Obviously, a two-party system is preferred over a multi-party system as the former is easier to run and govern administration. As such, politicians become less unruly and more harmonized while dealing with domestic and external issues effectively and efficiently, as is the case realized in the U.S. Also, in the U.S., since Republicans are principally motivated by conservative ideas and thoughts while Democrats are broadly identified as more liberal, the altering of the presidency from one after the other party helps develop the nation well and maintain the U.S. foreign strategic relationship with the rest of the world. On the other hand, since Democrats and Republicans have own political views and are politically disengaged with each other, a switch of a governing power sometimes may be difficult to implement some policies due to inconsistent policies of two different political parties. It is because some policies and projects are of long-term to execute and implement them. Likewise, there may be a risk of societal polarization as the two-party system obstructs the authentic representation of candidates from the third party/minor parties–limiting the number of new ideas that can potentially enter into the political spectrum from a new major party. However, assuming that politicians work for the nation and for its people–truly representing and acting as per the political aspirations of voters– I think a two-party system, like the U.S. adopts– which does not discard candidates for the presidency from the third party too, is in favor of a nation and its public because a political stability plays a crucial role while achieving social, cultural, economic , strategic stability and developing a nation.
Republicans are principally motivated by conservative ideas and thoughts while Democrats are broadly identified as more liberal.
Moreover, a government rather than helping an opposite party under a two-party system just to avoid the entry of a third-party in the mainstream politics, it should address social, economic, cultural and strategic issues rationally and effectively. Since the U.S. is suffering from problems, like terrorism in the domestic land, domestic income inequality, domestic racism etc, such issues should be dealt sensibly to make the two-party system successful in the U.S. Most importantly, the relation between Democrats and Republicans should be such that they should be able to solve even complex and controversial issues while addressing the political aspiration of voters as well as serving in favor of a nation. At the same time, a coalition can also be made between a stronger and weaker parties to address radical ideas put forward by minor parties–avoiding a chance of developing another major party–and to establish dominance. Thus, given no idea is free from its inherent defects, since a two-party system is able to make the U.S. economically prosperous, technically sound, strategically stronger, religiously harmonious, and culturally rich, I think a two-party system in the U.S. is followed by historical circumstances and stability of a nation.
Importantly, international practices reveal that a two-party system is relatively pragmatic and successful in developed nations to create a situation of political stability and economic posterity for making them developed in much aspect of human lives and societies. For example, the United States, Jamaica, Zimbabwe, Malta describe a situation of a two-party system in a way which elects officials belonging to one of the only two key parties and third parties are hardly ever able to win any seats in the legislature. On the other hand, countries like Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia suggest a two-party system such that two major parties prevail elections in addition of winning a few seats in the legislature by potential third parties too. However, there is a substantial control in the legislature by the two major parties than their percentage of votes imply. Even though a two-party system is criticized on the ground of underestimating alternative views, being less competitive, promoting voters’ unresponsiveness as compared to a multi-party system, the former is substantially assisting politicians and policy makers to establish peace and maintain rules of law in nations–which are in fact ultimate goals of each political party to develop a nation and hence the two-party system in the U.S.
Even though the constitution of the U.S. does not design any restrictions about political parties, the victory of candidates only from two major political parties, Republicans and Democrats– in almost all elected offices, reveals some structural barriers for the third parties from electing even a few candidates in state and local levels. More importantly, the rigidity of the two prime party system in the American politics is quite noticeable while electing a president of the nation as a whole. However, one should not discard and undermine a major role played by the third party due to its presence in presidential elections. A two-party system is the inevitable consequence of the voting system since the U.S. uses a first-past-the-post (FPTP) voting system, which means that whoever gets the most votes wins. However, the most votes does not necessarily mean a majority. For instance, suppose there are three candidates in the presidential election, and receive 22%, 38%, and 40% of the vote. In this case, the the candidate who gets a 40% votes cast wins the election even without receiving more than half of all votes cast. However, 60%, the majority of the voters, does not want the person with only 40% votes cast to be elected in the competing position. Under FPTP, the third parties tend to siphon off votes from their most closely aligned parties, and thus alter the result of the election–weeding out itself as well as all other competing parties who receive votes less than the highest votes. This phenomenon is known as the spoiler effect in the political science. In particular, Ralph Nader, one of the third party candidates participating in the presidential race in 2000, recognizes himself as a consumer advocate and as the two-time presidential nominee from the Green Party. Finally, he receives more than 2 million votes as the Green Party candidate back in 2000 presidential race–making Al Gore loss the election through siphoning off votes due to his participation in the presidential election. As a result, George W. Bush from the Republican Party wins the election as the 43rd president of the U.S. Thus, America despite follows a multi-party system, the two key parties– Democrats and Republicans– are the most well built and election-winning party in the U.S, winning every United States presidential election since 1852 and controlling the Congress of the United States fairly since at least 1856.
A two-party system is the inevitable consequence of the voting system since the U.S. uses a first-past-the-post (FPTP) voting system
Moving forward, the dominance of the two major political parties, Democrats and Republicans, in the U.S. is due to the structural provision of the plurality electoral system. Analyzing the historical nature of the U.S. political parties, Democrats and Republicans have dominated the political landscape of the presidency in the U.S. from the 18th and 19th centuries. However, this does not mean that there are not any other political parties to fight elections against the two key political parties in presidential elections. In this regard, third parties have only become successful to act as spoilers which serves to divide party coalitions. But this does not mean that a party system has always been long lasting and stable because we have seen a lot of breaking of parties in the U.S. as well as in multi-party countries like, Nepal. Given political problems are inevitable and are not due to a single reason, since a two-party system in the U.S. and in other developed countries results in a political stability, peace and economic growth to large extent under the domain of democracy, it can be a good practice in multi-party countries, like Nepal, to establish a political stability and to develop a nation radically. It should be noted that a provision of proportional representation is the foundation for the development of multi-party systems, which results in the existence of new parties in addition to major parties in the legislature. The last but not least point is that the alternative of a two-party system is itself in the U.S. because it makes the U.S unified; so, I think a two-party system is the past, present and future of the US’s political election system. Finally, taking politics as a public institution rather than a private firm, a two-party system can be a panacea for the economic development of a nation. Given the present socioeconomic, cultural and political status of the U.S., since every single president since 1852 is either from Republicans or from Democrats despite the existence of various minor parties in the U.S., a two-party system has become a traditional political culture of the U.S.
The last but not least point is that the alternative of a two-party system is itself in the U.S. because it makes the U.S unified.
Narendra Raj Tiwari (Email: [email protected]) PhD student (Economics) at Texas Tech University
Comment