Two-party system
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article or section has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality. Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page. (October 2008) |
 |
This article or section appears to contradict itself. Please help fix this problem. |
| This article is part of the Politics series |
| Party politics |
| Political spectrum |
| Left-right politics Left-wing · Right-wing Syncretic |
| Party platform (manifesto) |
| Party system |
| Dominant-party Multi-party Non-partisan Single-party Two-party |
| Lists |
| Ideologies Parties by ideology Parties by country Parties by UN geoscheme |
| Politics portal |
A two-party system is a form of party system where two major political parties dominate voting in nearly all elections, at every level. As a result, all, or nearly all, elected offices end up being held by candidates endorsed by one of the two major parties. Coalition governments occur only rarely in two-party systems.
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. The first two parties recognised are the Tory Party and the Whig Party in the United Kingdom.
Notable examples of countries with "two party systems" include the United Kingdom, the United States, Spain, Malaysia, Portugal, Australia, and Jamaica. Though these countries are often thought of as being two-party states, other parties may have reasonable bases of support.
Generally, a two-party system becomes a dichotomous division of the political spectrum with an ostensibly right-wing and left-wing party: Tories vs. Labour in some Commonwealth countries, Republicans vs. Democrats in the US, etc.
In 2008, the website "The Melting Pot Project" became the first notable site to promote changes to the American two-party system without throwing support behind a particular third party.[1]
[edit] Advantages and disadvantages
 |
This article may be inaccurate or unbalanced in favor of certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page. |
 |
This article or section may contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text. Please help improve this article by checking for inaccuracies. (October 2008) (help, talk, get involved!) |
Potential Advantages
- If a polity uses a plurality vote counting system, and there are three or more political parties, then a majority of voters may be split between two candidates with similar platforms (see vote splitting above). This would result in the selection of what is, from a majority point of view, the third best choice as the winner. For example, in a three party system, if 60% of a population favors "viewpoint A" and there are two candidates who support "viewpoint A" it is likely that each will receive about 30% of the vote, with the remaining party receiving 40%. This simplified example can be extrapolated to the results of any electoral process with more than two choices and any number of issues, with the result that the winner will actually be opposed to the majority and this multiparty electoral process will therefore be invalid. This problem can be ameliorated by using vote-couting systems other than plurality which are designed to avoid vote-splitting.
- The platforms of both parties include mostly middle-of-the-road type policies and opinions, due to the desire to identify with a majority of voters, and this may contribute to a stability in government policies.
- Two party systems usually promote more cohesive political coalitions. For example in multiparty system where parties form coalitions two cooperating parties not only have to worry about their positions being contested by oppositions parties, but also the possibility that the other parties with whom they share power will attempt to usurp their positions in order to expand their own influence in government. This gives the individual parties incentive to break ranks in order to maintain their positions and making the government defunct. By contrast, in a system where two similar groups have formed a coalition under the umbrella of a larger party such concerns can be settled through preexisting within the party such as primaries. The end result being that parties are usually more cohesive and streamlined in managing governments.
Potential Disadvantages
- 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 first past the post (FPTP), at least at a regional level. Mexico had a dominant party system until constitutional reforms added proportional representation to the scheme.[citation needed]
- Campaign contributions can more easily corrupt a two-party system - since it has fewer players to receive donations.
- In The Federalist No. 10, James Madison decried the liability of representative legislatures to be controlled by single factions holding a majority of the seats. Madison argues that because getting rid of factions is nearly impossible and leads to highly undesirable side-effects, ensuring that all factions are represented reduces the likelihood that any one faction will control all of the seats and institute any and all changes they desire, thus preventing majority tyranny.[2] A two-party system often leads to one faction winning a majority of the seats and governing without compromise.[3] A multi-party system or proportional non-partisan system could be more consensus-based, allowing for laws to be passed less hastily and with more sincere debate on the issues.[improper synthesis?][not in citation given]
- Some voters tend to have one issue that highly motivates - or even completely motivates - which party they will vote for. Because two parties dominate, opposing parties tend to take opposite sides on many issues, these "one issue voters" will automatically vote for the party that represents their view on the one issue, even though they may disagree with most of their other positions. Candidates often concentrate on popular issues (especially issues considered "moral" or ethical in character) to influence voters who are undecided or "swing voters." The issue at hand tends to be one that sparks a lot of emotion - in the United States, for example, the issue of abortion rights carries strong emotions on both sides of the fence, and a candidate's position on those rights is, for some voters, the deciding factor, even if most of their political ideals are espoused by the other candidate.
- 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. Others see it as fair to discourage unpopular opinions.
- Special interests can establish a lock on political discourse, media, etc. and establish a narrow dominant ideology which both parties serve so that in effect it is a one-party system tending to corporatism, although this is a feature of all governments and is not specific to the two party system.[original research?]
[edit] See Also
[edit] References
- ^ "[1]."
- ^ Madison, James, The Federalist No. 10, http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers/No._10?oldid=504180
- ^ Lijphart, Arend (1999). "The Westminster Model of Democracy". Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press. ISBN 0300078935.
