Two-party system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A two-party system is a form of party system where two major political parties dominate the voting in nearly all elections. As a result, all, or nearly all, elected offices end up being held by candidates endorsed by the two major parties. Coalition governments occur only rarely in two-party systems, though each party may internally look like a coalition.

Under a two-party system, one of the two parties typically holds a majority in the legislature (or a legislative house in a bicameral system), and is referred to as the majority party. The other party is referred to as the minority party.

[edit] How and why it occurs

Often general elections have rules that allow any number of candidates names to be placed on a final ballot as long as those candidates meet some minimum requirements, often based on signatures of support gathered. This type of general election promotes coalition building outside of the election process. These coalitions or political factions have, over time, become formalized associations called political parties with rules and procedures for selecting the candidate most likely to win in order to put forward the strongest candidate for the General Election. In such a system the two most well organized and unified parties will ultimately have recurring success. Since there can only be two successful parties, then the two parties often become more like coalitions of factions that would have otherwise been their own discrete parties in other electoral systems. These unified parties are held together despite their differences because their common political beliefs outweigh their differences and because of the threat of vote splitting.

Vote splitting can affect the outcome of an election when a plurality and not majority is required to win. In this scenario, two candidates which may represent a majority political viewpoint both receive votes that would have otherwise gone to the other candidate and thus "throwing" the election to a candidate that may have received far less than majority support. A Two-round system with a non partisan primary reduces concerns over vote splitting, because the top two candidates' names from the primary will be printed on the final ballot. In this scenario, the voter still has an opportunity for tactical voting to select the better or least bad candidate in the final election.

Two party systems by their nature allow third parties to occasionally supplant one of the two major parties. For example, (the Labour Party in 20th century United Kingdom, or arguably the Republican Party in the 19th century United States), but only at the ultimate expense of a former major party (the Liberal Party and the Whigs, respectively). The overall system re-stabilizes into two-party mode after a three-party interlude - see Duverger's law.

In countries that use proportional representation (PR), especially where the whole country forms a single constituency (like Israel), the electoral rules discourage a two-party system; the number of votes received for a party relates directly and proportionally to the number of representative seats won, and new parties can thus develop an immediate electoral niche. Duverger identified that the use of proportional representation would make a two party system less likely.

[edit] Advantages and disadvantages

The two-party system's defenders argue that:

• Uncommon and unconventional ideas remain non-influential, so policies and governments do not change rapidly. (Others dispute whether such innate conservatism provides advantages. While smaller parties find this exceptionally frustrating, proponents of the two-party system suggest that it enhances stability while eventually allowing for ideas that gain favor to become politically influential.)
• The dynamics of a two-party system drives both parties' policies towards the position of a mythical median voter while remaining (hopefully) distinctive enough to motivate their core support. This "middle anchor" can theoretically work to prevent both parties from shifting too far to either side of the political spectrum.
• Bickering of narrowly based ideological factions in multi-party systems can lead to a torpid legislative process. These factions, if they gain enough influence via winning seats, can adopt a "by any means necessary" mentality of furthering their agenda which can include purposely blocking or delaying important legislation.
• Narrowly based ideological factions can force the major parties to help them in exchange for their support. This can create a chaotic and fluctuating system of alliances that intensifies confusion among voters. Additionally, this "tie-breaker" influence minor parties achieve can serve to undermine the true positions of the major parties.

Against the argument that the two-party system leads to more stable governance, critics of two-party systems argue that:

• It is impossible to nominate, let alone elect, a moderate candidate. Among non-moderates (for instance, Democrats or Republicans in the US), a candidate's campaign can become extremely complicated if he chooses to break with his party's ideology on any specific issue (or concede that he does not subscribe to the beliefs of some members of his party). For this reason, many argue that the two-party system is conducive to hardliner ideology and extremist politics.
• The ruling party's majority may still be based on a smaller segment of the population than coalition governments due to lower turnout, and votes cast that do not lead to the desired representative [1]. With lower voter turn-out plus only a chance of getting the representative voters want, the ultimate body of representatives were voted in with a rather small number of votes (such as 40%). The majority of this body (20% plus one) rules the nation. [2]
• Stability is not desirable in itself. The two parties in power resemble each other so much on the major issues and in their wealthy power base that the two party system more resembles a one party system.
• Elections based on geographical district representation can become subject to gerrymander. Even without deliberate partisan gerrymander, legislative representation can skew wildly from the actual percentage of the vote a party wins. For example, the party with the second-highest total vote tally actually won a parliamentary majority in the 1847, 1852, 1874, and 1951 UK general elections, and the most seats in the January 1910, December 1910, 1929, and February 1974 elections.
• In a two-party system, the two major political parties may enact election laws that insulate them from the threat of a new or alternative political party or movement from replacing them as one of the two major political parties. This has arguably occurred in the United States of America with ballot access laws.

Observers also criticize two-party systems for the following alleged flaws:

• Simplified (virtual two-way) elections motivate candidates to run negative campaigns, pointing out the flaws in the "other person" (usually the leader of the other party). Parties in such situations tend to stake out only those positions that appear necessary to differentiate themselves from their primary opponent, and not to concentrate on policies constructive or beneficial to citizens.
• If one of the two parties becomes weak, a dominant-party system may develop. In fact, a dominant party system has developed in almost every single country that has used FPTP, at least at a regional level. For instance, in Singapore one party wins almost every seat in parliament every election cycle with less than 60% of the vote (although true support for the party is not really measurable, since the government maintains high ballot access restrictions which often lead to one-way races in most districts)^{[citation needed]}. In the American south the Republican-Democrat party drove the US into a single party state^{[citation needed]}, and in the 1930's the Democrats had 3/4ths of the seats in both houses of Congress^{[citation needed]}. Also in the US, the Democrats had often landslided in the southern portion, winning almost every seat available in most states^{[citation needed]}. Mexico had a dominant party system until constitutional reforms added fairer proportional representation to the scheme.
• Debate in the assembly of the country can often become adversarial and not constructive, sometimes revolving around narrowly-perceived policy ideas, rather than larger political issues. Sometimes adversarial politics can lead to the opposition disagreeing with everything the dominant party proposes (and vice versa) for the sake of disagreeing. This can lead to the blocking of important legislation, especially reforms that may benefit the country.
• Campaign contributions can more easily corrupt a two-party system - since it has fewer players to receive donations.
• In an effort to attract voters, each party will adopt planks of the other party's platform, leading to the appearance in some skeptics' minds of a one-party system. Examples include the American notion of a "Republicrat".
• First-past-the-post election systems tend to produce fewer female and minority representatives than proportional representation systems^{[citation needed]}.
• District elections tend to deliver a larger economic gap between members within its society. The have's tend to have more and the have-not's tend to have less in these nations.^{[citation needed]}
• A central component of democracy, found within Federalist No. 10, is that of compromise^{[citation needed]}. Factionalism is present in every democracy, and cannot be avoided^{[citation needed]}. The appropriate step to combat this should be to ensure that all factions are represented, which reduces the likelihood that any one faction will control all of the seats and institute any and all changes they desire whatever the opposition^{[citation needed]}. A two-party system often leads to one faction winning a majority of the seats and governing without compromise^{[citation needed]}. A multi-party system or proportional non-partisan system is more consensus-based, allowing for laws to be passed less hastily and with more sincere debate on the issues, rather than a single party simply ramming legislation through by a narrow majority.

The electoral systems which tend to favour two-party systems (notably the "biggest pile of votes wins" system) also receive criticism because:

• Most electors have perforce to engage in tactical voting, voting for candidates that may not be their first choice - either to help a perceived potential "winner" or to block a potential enemy.
• Smaller parties suffer from under-representation: they will not receive a number of seats in the country's assembly that reflects the number of votes they receive (and therefore the amount of support they could or do receive). Some see this as undemocratic, arguing that citizens who vote for small parties should receive fair representation.
• Smaller parties often represent unconventional or 'alternative' (compared to the main parties) ideologies and formulate policy on the basis of such ideologies. Some commentators argue that in a democracy, all supported ideologies should receive fair representation.
• Larger parties benefit from over-representation; some see this as undemocratic.
• 'Average voters' may dislike suggestions that they require a simple choice as implying they are incapable of an informed decision.