Why do we have a two-party system in America?
A tale of stubbornness.
This morning’s election results left me with a lot of questions, many of which neither I nor the public at large nor the American government are capable of answering. One question that feels both pertinent and answerable, though, is around the democratic structure of this country. Why does America operate within a two party system, and how does this help and/or hurt American citizens and voters?
So, how did we get to the two-party system?
Today, the two-party system seems like the bedrock of our electoral process, but that wasn’t always the case. In the early 1800s, in fact, many Americans were suspicious of political parties. Party structures were too similar to monarchical governments for the founders’ tastes, with Alexander Hamilton even calling parties “the most fatal disease” of democratic governments. Americans wanted their political system to reflect all the people (with their usual racist, sexist, classist caveats), and saw parties as more likely to divide the people than to unite them.
Perhaps it’s all in the branding, though—at the time, parties were referred to as “factions,” and a faction does seem decidedly more divisive than a party. A question for another day: Who decided they’re called parties?
Despite Hamilton and his contemporaries’ disdain for a partisan system, they wound up in the center of it all. The original American political parties, the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans, were cults of personality in many ways. The Federalists centered on Hamilton and his ideals, while the Democratic-Republicans orbited around Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Both groups looked to their central figures for ideology, and both groups were spurred on and held together by their leaders’ charisma and desire to win out.
Federalism’s torch was snuffed around 1812, as the “Era of Good Feelings” was ushered in with the Monroe administration. Political division was relatively low at that time, with much of the country united under the Democratic-Republican mast.
By the mid 1820s, though, the party system was back in swing. The Whigs made a splash between then and the 1850s, but by the middle of the 19th century, Americans were divided primarily between the Democratic party and the Republican party. That bisection has been the status quo ever since, albeit with shifts in each party’s stances over time.
Why don’t we have more than two parties?
Don’t get me wrong—we’ve tried. Throughout American history, alternative parties have come and gone, including the Whigs, the Know-Nothings, the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, and the Bull-Moose Party, to name a few. Upstart parties are often built around a tentpole value, as with the Green Party, whose primary focus is on environmentally policy and impact.
These parties may have found a home in the mainstream of a different democracy, but none of these attempts have broken through to the American mainstream for a couple of reasons.
First, our voting systems aren’t designed for it. Per Duverger’s law, our single ballot and majority-rules approach were always destined to bring us to a two-party system. Ways around this include ranked-choice voting and instant runoff voting, both of which were on the ballot in several states this election cycle.
Second, the parties in power aren’t interested. Campaign and voting laws enacted by both mainstream parties create major barriers for third-party candidates to be printed on most ballots, and it’s near-impossible to win as a write-in candidate. That’s one thing on which the two mainstream parties can agree—they don’t want to share the ballot any more than they already do.
How does the two-party system impact American voters?
The good news is that a two-party approach can be easier to understand and stay tuned into than a multi-party system. Think of it like watching sports—it’s much easier to tell who’s winning one game between two teams than it is to track the entire league’s positions table, especially when you throw coalitions into the mix.
Two-party systems can also be a tool for governmental stability. Voters come to know what to expect from each party’s platform and candidates, and continuity between administrations is more feasible than with a multi-party system.
That stability comes at the cost of adaptability. The two mainstream parties are unable to effectively, efficiently respond to the needs of the voting public. Glacial change, then, is one of the downsides of two-party politics.
This system also results in gerrymandering and other attempts at wresting control from the opposition. As the system ages, the two mainstream parties grow further apart and thus less likely to truly serve the people they mean to represent.
Why does this matter right now?
In many respects, America has been boxed into the two-party system because of an unwillingness to find compromise. The basis of each party was—and is—in the direct opposition to the other mainstream party. There is little room for gray area, little room for joint problem solving, and virtually no room for legislative solutions that speak to both parties’ goals.
Our two-party narrative and resulting campaign structure assume that voters fall neatly into one party or the other. Increasingly, this is not true. By comparison, in multi-party systems, the voter’s role is to identify the party that fits their governmental aims best, even when that doesn’t mean a perfect fit.
In a two-party system, it seems all but impossible to lose sight of the values of the people. Instead, we waste valuable time and resources attempting to tear down the opposition without taking stock of real constituent needs and concerns.
To put a point on it, perhaps this year’s presidential election would have taken a different course if there had been less emphasis on constrictive, oppositional, two-party campaigning, and more on hearing and meaningfully responding to the people of this country.