Are Two Parties Enough? – Does Government Work?

The United States’ two party political system undoubtedly has its positives and negatives. In recent years, however, as Congressional polarization increases, discontent with this system is growing. A 2015 Gallup news poll that Americans are becoming less likely to identify with either major party. Instead, just about 43% of those surveyed, identified as independents (http://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/180917/americans-less-interested-two-major-political-parties.asp). The same survey found that it was not that voters were more likely to swing between parties during elections. Rather, dissatisfaction with the two parties, their leadership, and their effectiveness is mounting enough that voters are becoming less likely to willingly identify with a major party. While there are benefits to this current system, the negatives seem to outweigh them at this point in American political culture. Some of these issues include reduced choice and polarization. Regarding the former, because there are only two political parties, these parties take opposing views. These divisions do not necessarily always reflect voter preferences. For example, the issue of abortion ostracizes certain voters. Democrats typically support women’s reproductive rights, including the right to abortion, while Republicans oppose allowing access to abortion. Catholic voters, who typically are against abortion but in favor of social programs that Democrats are more likely to impose to benefit the poor, are forced to decide to vote for Republicans who will restrict access to abortion but will not enact policies to benefit the poor, and Democrats who support abortion but will pass policy to help those in need. Voters are often forced to pick and choose policy that is most important to them while abandoning their other preferences and beliefs. Additionally, the two-party political system’s use of primaries increases polarization. In election primaries, the Americans who turn out to vote are more ideologically extreme than the majority of the American population. This means that more extreme candidates are often more appealing to the voters. This leads to polarization as extremes on both sides struggle to come to meaningful compromises (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/12/7-things-to-know-about-polarization-in-america/ ).

As this discontent with the current system grows, it becomes tempting to examine other political systems around the world that do not adhere to the strict two-party system like the United States. Multiparty systems allow voters to vote with a party that more closely suits their interests than is possible in a two-party system. Additionally, multiparty systems cater to the minority. Individuals with beliefs that differ from the majority are able to successfully elect representatives that suit their preferences more easily than in two-party systems. Although most countries with multiparty systems are parliamentarian rather than presidential systems, they do exist. Mexico, for example, has a presidential system with more than two major parties. Just like in parliamentarian countries, these parties tend to form coalitions within the legislative body in order to pass legislation. 200 members of Mexico’s legislative body are elected based on proportional representation which means that seats are allocated based directly on votes. This means that if a small party wins more than 2% of the vote they will be entitled to a proportional number of seats in the legislative body ( http://portalanterior.ine.mx/archivos3/portal/historico/contenido/The_Mexican_Electoral_System/#3 ). Once elected, these smaller parties are able to influence and effect policy much more significantly than any party other than Democrats and Republicans are able to do in America.

While it is outrageous, and even humorous, to even suggest that the United States is anywhere near making any changes to its electoral system, it is still interesting and relevant to compare these different systems. Is the United States government working as effectively and efficiently as it can? Do countries, like Mexico, with other electoral systems actually work more effectively and efficient? Do the benefits of our two-party system outweigh any disadvantages?

Abigail Belcher says:

April 21, 2018 at 10:39 pm

Gwynna,
Thank you for your post. I, myself, often find that I struggle choosing a party that I completely agree with. I often have to pick and choose between what issue I find to be most important to me in order to choose which candidate I want to support. Like a lot of the population, I have to give up my values on some issues to make sure my voice is heard on the one or two issues I find to be most important overall. While I have voted in every election I could since I turned 18, I still struggle and am very overwhelmed with the process because it is hard to vote for someone you don’t have 100% confidence in, especially when you know you are voting for someone who doesn’t share a lot of your values, but does happen to share one, like abortion, that you feel strongly about one way or the other. I don’t know if a multiparty system is the way to go for America, because I feel that would be too much change for the American people, but I do think the parties need to work together to find more common ground so it is not so difficult for people who are not extremists to vote and not feel completely overwhelmed.

Sophia Harrison says:

April 23, 2018 at 11:14 pm

Gwynna,
Thank you for your post! I think you posed a really noteworthy question asking if two parties are enough considering all the disadvantages of the two-party system. Something interesting to bring up is that at one point in time “Third Parties” existed within the United States, including the Whigs, Abolitionists, and the Progressives. At the time, there were multi-seat Congressional Districts, which could have two or more elected representatives. This system allowed a candidate to be elected with as little as 10 percent of the vote, allowing candidates from minor parties to win office. Our current single seat districts, with “winner-take-all” elections, favors parties that can assemble coalitions of over fifty percent of the voters. This favors the two major parties. Congress eliminated multi-seat districts in 1967, which the passage of the Uniform Congressional Districts Act. I feel like there are a lot of benefits to the system. First, it is more democratic than the current system. Currently, a candidate can get 50.1% of the vote and win. This leaves 49.9% of the voters feeling unrepresented. In a two seat district, the first place candidate might get 55% of the vote and the second place candidate 30% of the vote. Both would go to Congress, and 85% of the people would have elected a Representative. Secondly, this will allow small parties to get candidates elected, allowing them to have a voice in American politics. This would alter our national politics from a rigid two party system to a multi-party system with two main parties. Lastly, it would force the American media to recognize that every issue doesn’t fall neatly along the liberal versus conservative divide.

Hannah Grow says:

April 24, 2018 at 4:28 pm

Dear Gwynna,

Thank you for this thoughtful post questioning the existence of only two parties in the American political system, and whether or not we would benefit from having more. Having proportional representation would be beneficial on the grounds that more people would be able to find parties that better represent what they want, which would probably result in greater voter participation. However, this would only worsen the stalemates that keep happening in Congress as a result of the extreme polarization we are seeing in America today. With more groups, there would only be less agreement between more people, worsening the problem that having proportional representation would try to solve. Although there would be some advantages to have more than just two parties in our democracy, I do think that our system exists for a reason.