| Part of thePolitics Series |
| Party politics |
|---|
 Politics portal |
| Part ofa series on |
| Politics |
|---|
_(cropped).svg) |
Government branches |
| Politics portal |
Atwo-party system is apoliticalparty system in which twomajorpolitical parties[a] consistently dominate the political landscape. At any point in time, one of the two parties typically holds a majority in thelegislature and is usually referred to as themajority orgoverning party while the other is theminority oropposition party. Around the world, the term is used to refer to one of two kinds of party systems. Both result fromDuverger's law, which demonstrates that"winner-take-all" or "first-past-the-post" elections produce two dominant parties over time.[1][2]
The first type oftwo-party system is an arrangement in which all (or nearly all)elected officials belong to one of two major parties. In such systems,minor orthird parties rarely win any seats in the legislature. Such systems exist, for example, in theUnited States,the Bahamas,Jamaica, andZimbabwe.[3][4][5][6] In such systems, while chances for third-party candidates winning election to major national office are remote, it is possible forfactions within the larger parties to exert influence on one or even both of the two major parties.[7][8][9][10][11][12]
Two-party system also indicates an arrangement, common inparliamentary systems, in which two major parties dominate elections, but in which there are viable minor parties and/orindependents regularly elected to the legislature. These successful minor parties are oftenregional parties. In these systems, the two major parties exert proportionately greater influence than their percentage of voters would suggest, and other parties may frequently win election tolocal orsubnational office.[13]Canada, theUnited Kingdom, andAustralia are examples of countries that have this kind of two-party system.
TheRepublic of Ghana since itstransition to democracy in 1992 have a strongly institutionalized two-party system led byNew Patriotic Party andNational Democratic Congress.[14]
Thepolitics of Zimbabwe are effectively a two-party system between theRobert Mugabe foundedZimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front and the opposition coalitionMovement for Democratic Change.
TheParliament of Lebanon is mainly made up of twobipartisan alliances. Although both alliances are made up of several political parties on both ends of thepolitical spectrum the two-way political situation has mainly arisen due to strong ideological differences in the electorate.[15] Once again this can mainly be attributed to thewinner takes all thesis.
South Korea has a multi-party system[16] that has sometimes been described as having characteristics of a two-party system.[17] Parties will have reconstructions based upon its leader, but the country continues to maintain two major parties. Currently these parties are theliberalDemocratic Party of Korea and theconservativePeople Power Party.
Since the 1920s, theAustralian House of Representatives (and thus thefederal government) has in effect been a two-party system.
Since the end ofWorld War II, Australia's House of Representatives has been dominated by two factions:
The Coalition has been in government about two-thirds of time, broken by four periods of Labor governments: 1972–1975, 1983–1996, 2007–2013, and since 2022.
The ALP is Australia's largest and oldest continuing political party, formed in 1891 from theAustralian labour movement. The party has branches in every state and territory.
The Coalition refers to the alliance between theLiberal Party of Australia (Australia's 2nd largest party) andNational Party of Australia (4th largest). It was formed after the1922 Australian federal election, when theNationalist Party (ancestor of today's Liberal Party) lost its absolute majority, and was only able to remain in government by allying with the Country Party (now called theNational Party). Under the Coalition agreement, if the Coalition forms government then thePrime Minister will be the leader of the Liberals, and theDeputy Prime Minister will be the leader of the Nationals. In theory, disagreements between the Coalition's constituent parties would lead to the Coalition splitting apart. This has happened only a few times in Australia's modern political history, and has always resulted in the Coalition coming back together by the next election. The most recent split occurred in 2025, followingLabor's landslide victory at that year's election.[18][19][20]
One reason for Australia's two-party system is because the House of Representatives (which chooses thePrime Minister of Australia) is elected through theinstant-runoff voting electoral system. Although voters can preference third parties and independents above the major parties, and the voting method has a reducedspoiler effect, there is still only one member per electoral division (ie: a winner-take-all system) and so major parties tend to win the vast majority of seats even if they need to rely on preferences to do so. For example, a Labor candidate may win a seat with 30% of the vote for Labor and 21% fromAustralian Greens voters who ranked Labor second.
On the other hand, theAustralian Senate is effectively a multi-party system, and a Senate majority matching the House is very rare. It usessingle transferable vote with multiple Senators for each state/territory. This results in roughproportional representation and as a result, third parties have much more influence and often hold thebalance of power. Since 2004, theAustralian Greens have been the third largest party in the country, with 8-13% of the national vote and an equivalent amount of Senators. Prior to this, theAustralian Democrats was the third largest party. Other current and past parties includeOne Nation, theLiberal Democrats andFamily First.
Some Australian states have seen the rise of minor parties at either the state or federal level (eg:Centre Alliance inSouth Australia,Katter's Australian Party in northernQueensland, and theShooters, Fishers and Farmers Party in western New South Wales), while some have seen long periods of dominance by one party. Some parties are absent entirely in parts of the country.
Malta is somewhat unusual in that while the electoral system issingle transferable vote (STV), a form with proportional representation traditionally associated with a multi-party system, minor parties have not had much success. Politics is dominated between the centre-leftLabour Party and the centre-rightNationalist Party, with no third parties winning seats in Parliament between1962 and2017 and since 2022.[21]
A report inThe Christian Science Monitor in 2008 suggested thatSpain was moving toward a "greater two-party system" while acknowledging that Spain has many small parties.[22] A 2015 article published byWashingtonPost.com written by academic Fernando Casal Bértoa noted the decline in support for the two main parties, thePeople's Party (PP) and theSpanish Socialist Workers' Party (PSOE) in recent years, with these two parties winning only 52 percent of the votes in that year'sregional andlocal elections. He explained this as being due to theSpanish economic crisis, a series ofpolitical corruption scandals and broken campaign promises. He argued that the emergence of the newCitizens andPodemos parties would mean the political system would evolve into a two-bloc system, with an alliance of the PP and Citizens on the right facing a leftist coalition of PSOE, Podemos and theUnited Left.[23] Far-rightVox party became the third largest group in the Spanish parliament in the late 2010s.
In countries such asBritain, two major parties which have strong influence emerge and tend to elect most of the candidates, but a multitude of lesser parties exist with varying degrees of influence, and sometimes these lesser parties are able to elect officials who participate in the legislature. In political systems based on theWestminster system, which is a particular style ofparliamentary democracy based on the British model and found in manyCommonwealth countries, a majority party will form thegovernment and the minority party will form theopposition, and coalitions of lesser parties are possible; in the rare circumstance in which neither party is the majority, ahung parliament arises. Sometimes these systems are described astwo-party systems, but they are usually referred to asmulti-party systems or atwo-party plus system. There is not always a sharp boundary between a two-party system and a multi-party system.
TheLabour Party and theConservative Party are the two largest parties in the United Kingdom since1922.
In Poland, the two largest parties since the2005 election have beenCivic Platform and theLaw and Justice party. These two parties have dominated the political landscape, with one typically forming the government while the other serves as the main opposition. However, several smaller parties exist and often play a significant role, especially in coalition-building or in theSenate, where electoral rules are different. Poland uses aproportional representation system for theSejm, which allows for the representation of a wider range of political parties compared to majoritarian systems, and enables coalition governments.
Despite the presence of multiple parties, the rivalry between Civic Platform and Law and Justice has defined Polish politics in the 21st century, leading many observers to describe the system as a de facto two-party system or a "two-party plus" system. The political scene is sometimes characterized by polarization between the two major camps, though shifts in public sentiment and political alliances occasionally give rise to third-party movements or temporary realignments.
While the system has not always produced single-party majorities, Law and Justice managed to secure an outright majority in the2015 election, an uncommon occurrence under Poland’s proportional system. Civic Platform previously led coalition governments, most notably with thePolish People's Party. The political environment remains dynamic, with new parties emerging periodically, though none have yet succeeded in consistently challenging the dominance of the two leading parties.
Since 2023Civic Coalition holds government in coalition with Third Way and New Left.
In2025 Polish presidential election Law and Justice backed-up candidateKarol Nawrocki won against Civic Platform candidateRafał Trzaskowski in run-off.
Most Latin American countries also havepresidential systems very similar to the US often withwinner takes all systems. Due to the common accumulation of power in the presidential office both the official party and the main opposition became important political protagonists causing historically two-party systems.[24] Some of the first manifestations of this particularity was with theliberals and conservatives that often fought for power in all Latin America causing the first two-party systems in most Latin American countries which often lead to civil wars in places likeColombia,Ecuador,Mexico,Venezuela, theCentral American Republic andPeru, with fights focusing specially on opposing/defending the privileges of theCatholic Church and thecreolearistocracy. Other examples of primitive two-party systems included thePelucones versusPipiolos inChile,Federalists versusUnitarians inArgentina,Colorados versusLiberals inParaguay andColorados versusNationals inUruguay.[25]
As in other regions, the original rivalry between liberals and conservatives was overtaken by a rivalry betweencenter-left (oftensocial-democratic) parties versuscenter-rightliberal conservative parties, focusing more in economic differences than in cultural and religious differences as it was common during the liberal versus conservative period. Examples of this includeNational Liberation Party versusSocial Christian Unity Party inCosta Rica, theperonistaJusticialist Party versusRadical Civic Union inArgentina,Democratic Action versusCOPEI inVenezuela, theColombian Liberal Party versus theColombian Conservative Party in Colombia,Democratic Revolutionary Party versusPanameñista Party inPanama andLiberal Party versusNational Party inHonduras.[26] After the democratization of Central America following the end of theCentral American crisis in the 1990s formerfar-leftguerrillas and formerright-wing authoritarian parties, now in peace, make some similar two-party systems in countries likeNicaragua between theSandinista National Liberation Front and theLiberals and inEl Salvador between theFarabundo Martí National Liberation Front and theNationalist Republican Alliance.
The traditional two-party dynamic started to break after a while, especially in the early 2000s; alternative parties won elections breaking the traditional two-party systems includingRafael Caldera's (National Convergence)victory inVenezuela in 1993,Álvaro Uribe (Colombia First)victory in 2002,Tabaré Vázquez (Broad Front)victory inUruguay in 2004,Fernando Lugo (Christian Democratic Party)victory inParaguay in 2008,Ricardo Martinelli (Democratic Change)victory in 2009 inPanama,Luis Guillermo Solís (Citizens' Action Party)victory in 2014 inCosta Rica,Mauricio Macri (Republican Proposal)victory in 2015 inArgentina,Nayib Bukele (Grand Alliance for National Unity)victory in 2019 inEl Salvador,Gabriel Boric (Approve Dignity)victory in 2021 inChile andXiomara Castro (Liberty and Refoundation)victory in 2021 inHonduras, all of them from non-traditionalthird parties in their respective countries.[26] In some countries like Argentina, Chile and Venezuela the political system is now split in two large multi-party alliances or blocs, one on the left and one on the right of the spectrum,[25] such asFrente de Todos versusJuntos por el Cambio in Argentina, and theUnitary Platform versusGreat Patriotic Pole in Venezuela.
During theimperial period, since 1840, two great parties with a national base alternated its dominance between legislatures: theLiberal and theConservative. These parties were dissolved in 1889, after the republic was instituted in Brazil, in which the registration of party directories came under the jurisdiction of the states.
Brazil also had a two-party system for most ofits military dictatorship (1964–1985): on October 27, 1965, the Institutional Act 2 decree[27] banned all existing parties and conditioned the creation of new parties to the quorum of 1/3 of the then-elected National Congress; resulting in the creation of two parties: a pro-government party, theNational Renewal Alliance (ARENA) and an opposition party, theBrazilian Democratic Movement (MDB). Despite officially having a bipartisan system, complex electoral mechanisms, nominally neutral, were created to guarantee the prevalence of the ARENA in theNational Congress, making Brazil, in practice, adominant-party system in that period. The two parties were dissolved in 1979, when the regime allowed other parties to form.[28]
Canada has a multiparty system at the federal and provincial levels. Some provinces have effectively become two-party systems in which only two parties regularly get members elected, while smaller parties largely fail to secure electoral representation, and two of the three territories are run under a non-partisanconsensus government model rather than through a political party system. The provincial legislative assembly ofAlberta currently has only two parties; two-party representation has also historically been common in the legislative assemblies ofBritish Columbia,New Brunswick andPrince Edward Island, although all did elect some third-party members in their most recent provincial elections.
TheLiberal Party of Canada and theConservative Party of Canada are the two largest parties in Canada.
TheCommonwealth Caribbean while inheriting their basic political and voting system fromGreat Britain have become two-party systems. Thepolitics of Jamaica are between thePeople's National Party and theJamaica Labour Party. Thepolitics of Guyana are between thePeople's Progressive Party andAPNU which is actually a coalition of smaller parties. Thepolitics of Trinidad and Tobago are between thePeople's National Movement and theUnited National Congress. ThePolitics of Belize are between theUnited Democratic Party and thePeople's United Party. ThePolitics of the Bahamas are between theProgressive Liberal Party and theFree National Movement. Thepolitics of Barbados are between theDemocratic Labour Party and theBarbados Labour Party.
 | This sectionneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Two-party system" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(December 2019) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
 |
TheUnited States has two dominant political parties; historically, there have been few instances in which third party candidates won an election. In theFirst Party System, onlyAlexander Hamilton'sFederalist Party andThomas Jefferson'sDemocratic-Republican Party were significant political parties. Toward the end of the First Party System, the Democratic-Republicans were dominant (primarily under the presidency ofJames Monroe).
Under theSecond Party System, the Democratic-Republican Party split during the1824 United States presidential election into Adams' Men and Jackson's Men. In the1828 presidential election, the modernDemocratic Party formed in support ofAndrew Jackson. TheNational Republicans were formed in support ofJohn Quincy Adams. After the National Republicans collapsed, theWhig Party and theFree Soil Party quickly formed and collapsed.
In 1854, theThird Party System began when the modernRepublican Party formed from a loose coalition of former Whigs, Free Soilers and other anti-slavery activists. The Republicans quickly became the dominant party nationally, andAbraham Lincoln became the first Republican President in the1860 presidential election. The Democrats held a strong, loyal coalition in theSolid South. This period saw theAmerican Civil War where the South (which was mostly dominated by theSouthern Democrats) attempted to secede as theConfederate States of America, in an attempt to preserveracial slavery. The South lost the war and were forced toend slavery, and during the followingReconstruction Era the Republicans remained the most popular party nationally while the Democrats remained dominant in the South.
During theFourth Party System from about 1896 to 1932, the Republicans remained the dominant presidential party, although DemocratsGrover Cleveland andWoodrow Wilson were both elected to two terms (non-consecutively in the case of the former).
The1932 United States elections saw the onset of theFifth Party System and a long period of Democratic dominance due to theNew Deal Coalition. Democrat PresidentFranklin D. Roosevelt won landslides in four consecutive elections. Other than the two terms of RepublicanDwight Eisenhower from 1953 to 1961, Democrats retained firm control of the presidency until the mid-1960s. In Congress, Democrats retained majorities in both houses for 60 years until theRepublican Revolution, broken only by brief Republican majorities.
There was a significant change in U.S. politics in 1960,[29] and this is seen by some as a transition to asixth party system.
Since the mid-1960s, despite a couple of landslides (such asRichard Nixon carrying 49 states and 61% of the popular vote overGeorge McGovern in1972;Ronald Reagan carrying 49 states and 58% of the popular vote overWalter Mondale in1984), presidential elections have been competitive between the predominant Republican and Democratic parties and no one party has been able to hold the presidency for more than three consecutive terms.
Throughout every American party system, no third party has won a presidential election or majorities in either house of Congress. Despite that, third parties and third party candidates have gained traction and support. In the election of1912,Theodore Roosevelt won 27% of the popular vote and 88 electoral votes running as aProgressive. In the1992 presidential election,Ross Perot won 19% of the popular vote but no electoral votes running as an Independent.
ModernAmerican politics, in particular theelectoral college system, has been described as duopolistic since the Republican and Democratic parties have dominated and framedpolicy debate as well as the public discourse on matters of national concern for about a century and a half.Third parties have encountered various blocks ingetting onto ballots at different levels of government as well as other electoral obstacles, such as denial of access to general election debates. Since 1987, theCommission on Presidential Debates, established by the Republican and Democratic parties themselves, supplanted debates run since 1976 by theLeague of Women Voters. The League withdrew its support in protest in 1988 over objections of alleged stagecraft such as rules for camera placement, filling the audience with supporters, approved moderators, predetermined question selection, room temperature and others.[30] The Commission maintains its own rules for admittance[31] and has only admitted a single third-party candidate to a televised debate,Ross Perot, in1992.[32]
Some parts of the US have had their own party systems, distinct from the rest of the country.
Two-party systems can be contrasted with:
There are several reasons why, in some systems, two major parties dominate the political landscape. There has been speculation that a two-party system arose in theUnited States from early political battling between the federalists and anti-federalists in the first few decades after the ratification of theConstitution, according to several views.[3][34] In addition, there has been more speculation that the winner-takes-all electoral system as well as particular state and federal laws regarding voting procedures helped to cause a two-party system.[3]
_(cropped).jpg)
Political scientists such asMaurice Duverger[35] andWilliam H. Riker claim that there are strong correlations between voting rules and type of party system.Jeffrey D. Sachs agreed that there was a link between voting arrangements and the effective number of parties. Sachs explained how thefirst-past-the-post voting arrangement tended to promote a two-party system:
The main reason for America's majoritarian character is the electoral system for Congress. Members of Congress are elected in single-member districts according to the "first-past-the-post" (FPTP) principle, meaning that the candidate with the plurality of votes is the winner of the congressional seat. The losing party or parties win no representation at all. The first-past-the-post election tends to produce a small number of major parties, perhaps just two, a principle known in political science asDuverger's Law. Smaller parties are trampled in first-past-the-post elections.
— Sachs,The Price of Civilization, 2011[36]
Consider a system in which voters can vote for any candidate from any one of many parties. Suppose further that if a party gets 15% of votes, then that party will win 15% of the seats in the legislature. This is termedproportional representation or more accurately asparty-proportional representation. Political scientists speculate that proportional representation leads logically to multi-party systems, since it allows new parties to build a niche in the legislature:
Because even a minor party may still obtain at least a few seats in the legislature, smaller parties have a greater incentive to organize under such electoral systems than they do in the United States.
— Schmidt, Shelley, Bardes (2008)[3]
In contrast, a voting system that allows only a single winner for each possible legislative seat is sometimes termed asingle-winner voting system and is usually described under the heading of awinner-takes-all arrangement in the case of aplurality voting system. Each voter can cast a single vote for any candidate within any given legislative district, but the candidate with the most votes wins the seat, although variants, such as requiring a majority, are sometimes used. What happens is that in a general election, a party that consistently comes in third in every district is unlikely to win any legislative seats even if there is a significant proportion of the electorate favoring its positions. This arrangement strongly favors large and well-organized political parties that are able to appeal to voters in many districts and hence win many seats, and discourages smaller or regional parties. Politically oriented people consider their only realistic way to capture political power is to run under the auspices of the two dominant parties,[3] and legislators from both dominant parties have an incentive not to reform the system as it eliminates potential choices and multiple competing policy options, meaning that they do not necessarily need to adopt positions favorable to voters, but only need to be seen as marginally less unfavorable than the only other option to gain votes.
In the U.S., forty-eight states have a standardwinner-takes-all electoral system for amassing presidential votes in theElectoral College system.[37] Thewinner-takes-all principle applies in presidential elections, since if a presidential candidate gets the most votes in any particular state,all of theelectoral votes from that state are awarded. In all but two states,Maine andNebraska, the presidential candidate winning a plurality of votes wins all of the electoral votes, a practice called theunit rule.[3]
Duverger concluded that "plurality election single-ballot procedures are likely to produce two-party systems, whereas proportional representation and runoff designs encourage multipartyism."[35] He suggested there were two reasons whywinner-takes-all systems leads to a two-party system. First, the weaker parties are pressured to form an alliance, sometimes called afusion, to try to become big enough to challenge a large dominant party and, in so doing, gain political clout in the legislature. Second, voters learn, over time, not to vote for candidates outside of one of the two large parties since their votes for third party candidates are usually ineffectual.[3] As a result, weaker parties are eliminated by voters over time. Duverger pointed to statistics and tactics to suggest that voters tended to gravitate towards one of the two main parties, a phenomenon which he calledpolarization, and tend to shun third parties.[5] For example, some analysts suggest that theElectoral College system in theUnited States, by favoring a system of winner-takes-all in presidential elections, is a structural choice favoring only two major parties.[38]
Gary Cox suggested that America's two-party system was highly related with economic prosperity in the country:
The bounty of the American economy, the fluidity of American society, the remarkable unity of the American people, and, most important, the success of the American experiment have all mitigated against the emergence of large dissenting groups that would seek satisfaction of their special needs through the formation of political parties.
— Cox, according to George Edwards[35]
However, as of 2022, United States'Gini coefficient (which measures income inequality) ranks near the worst ofOECD countries and in the bottom half of all countries, while the country ranks outside the top five countries in terms ofGDP per capita.
An effort in 2012 by centrist groups to promoteballot access by third-party candidates calledAmericans Elect spent $15 million to get ballot access but failed to elect any candidates.[39] The lack of choice in a two-party model in politics has often been compared to the variety of choices in the marketplace.
Politics has lagged our social and business evolution ... There are 30 brands of Pringles in our local grocery store. How is it that Americans have so much selection for potato chips and only two brands – and not very good ones – for political parties?
— Scott Ehredt of the Centrist Alliance[11]
Third parties, meaning a party other than one of the two dominant parties, are possible in two-party systems, but they are often unlikely to exert much influence by gaining control of legislatures or by winning elections.[3] While there are occasional opinions in the media expressed about the possibility of third parties emerging in the United States, for example, political insiders such as the 1980 presidential candidate John Anderson think the chances of one appearing in the early twenty-first century is remote.[40] A report inThe Guardian suggested that American politics has been "stuck in a two-way fight betweenRepublicans andDemocrats" since theCivil War, and that third-party runs had little meaningful success.[41]
Third parties in a two-party system can be:
When third parties are built around an ideology which is at odds with the majority mindset, many members belong to such a party not for the purpose of expecting electoral success but rather for personal or psychological reasons.[3] In the U.S., third parties include older ones such as theLibertarian Party and theGreen Party and newer ones such as thePirate Party.[3][43] Many believe that third parties do not affect American politics by winning elections, but they can act as "spoilers" by taking votes from one of the two major parties.[3] They act like barometers of change in the political mood since they push the major parties to consider their demands.[3] An analysis inNew York Magazine by Ryan Lizza in 2006 suggested that third parties arose from time to time in the nineteenth century around single-issue movements such as abolition, women's suffrage, and the direct election of senators, but were less prominent in the twentieth century.[44] With afusion nomination, a candidate can appear under two separate labels, allowing voters to show support for a candidate and a party.[45]
A so-calledthird party in theUnited Kingdom were historically theLiberal Democrats, prior to theScottish National Party taking its place from the2015 election until the2024 election by number of the House of Common seats. In the2010 election, the Liberal Democrats received 23% of the votes but only 9% of the seats in theHouse of Commons. While electoral results do not necessarily translate into legislative seats, the Liberal Democrats can exert influence if there is a situation such as ahung parliament. In this instance, neither of the two main parties (at present, theConservative Party and theLabour Party) have sufficient authority to run the government. Accordingly, the Liberal Democrats can in theory exert tremendous influence in such a situation since they can ally with one of the two main parties to form a coalition. This happened in thecoalition government of 2010. The two party system in the United Kingdom allows for other parties to exist, although the main two parties tend to dominate politics (for example, the aforementioned coalition government was the first multi-party government since the government of Winston Churchill in the early- to mid-1940s); in this arrangement, other parties are not excluded and can win seats in Parliament. In contrast, the two party system in the United States has been described as a duopoly or an enforced two-party system, such that politics is almost entirely dominated by either the Republicans or Democrats, and third parties rarely win seats inCongress,[46] state legislatures, or even at the local level.
Some historians have suggested that two-party systems promote centrism and encourage political parties to find common positions which appeal to wide swaths of the electorate. It can lead to political stability,[2][failed verification] which leads, in turn, to economic growth. HistorianPatrick Allitt of theTeaching Company suggested that it is difficult to overestimate the long-term economic benefits of political stability. Sometimes two-party systems have been seen as preferable to multi-party systems because they are simpler to govern, with less fractiousness and greater harmony, since it discourages radical minor parties,[2] while multi-party systems can sometimes lead tohung parliaments.[47]Italy, with a multi-party system, has had years of divisive politics since 2000, although analyst Silvia Aloisi suggested in 2008 that the nation may be moving closer to a two-party arrangement,[48] although this no longer seemed the case by the 2010s, which saw the rise of theFive Star Movement andLega. The two-party system has generally been identified as simpler since there are fewer voting choices.[2]
Two-party systems have been criticized for downplaying alternative views,[2][4] being less competitive,[7] failing themedian voter theorem, encouraging voter apathy since there is a perception of fewer choices,[2] and putting a damper on debate[4] within a nation. In a proportional representation system, lesser parties can moderate policy since they are not usually eliminated from government.[2] One analyst suggested the two-party approach may not promote inter-party compromise but may encourage partisanship.[4] InThe Tyranny of the Two-party system, Lisa Jane Disch criticizes two-party systems for failing to provide enough options since only two choices are permitted on the ballot. She wrote:
Herein lies the central tension of the two–party doctrine. It identifiespopular sovereignty with choice, and then limits choice to one party or the other. If there is any truth to Schattschneider's analogy between elections and markets, America's faith in the two–party system begs the following question: Why do voters accept as the ultimate in political freedom a binary option they would surely protest as consumers? ... This is the tyranny of the two–party system, the construct that persuades United Statescitizens to accept two–party contests as acondition of electoral democracy.
— Lisa Jane Disch, 2002[49]
There have been arguments that the winner-take-all mechanism discourages independent or third-party candidates from running for office or promulgating their views.[7][50]Ross Perot's former campaign manager wrote that the problem with having only two parties is that the nation loses "the ability for things to bubble up from the body politic and give voice to things that aren't being voiced by the major parties."[40] One analyst suggested that parliamentary systems, which typically are multi-party in nature, lead to a better "centralization of policy expertise" in government.[51] Multi-party governments permit wider and more diverse viewpoints in government, and encourage dominant parties to make deals with weaker parties to form winning coalitions.[52] Analyst Chris Weigant ofthe Huffington Post wrote that "the parliamentary system is inherently much more open to minority parties getting much better representation than third parties do in the American system".[52] After an election in which the party changes, there can be a "polar shift in policy-making" when voters react to changes.[2]
Political analyst A. G. Roderick, writing in his bookTwo Tyrants, argued that the two American parties (the Republican Party and the Democratic Party) were highly unpopular (as of 2015), are not part of the political framework of state governments, and do not represent the 47% of the electorate who identify themselves as "independents".[53] He makes a case that theAmerican president should be elected on a non-partisan basis,[53][54][55] and asserts that both political parties are "cut from the same cloth of corruption and corporate influence."[56]
Others have accused two party systems of encouraging an environment which stifles individual thought processes and analysis. In a two party system, knowledge about political leaning facilitates assumptions to be made about an individual's opinions on a wide variety of topics (e.g.abortion,taxes, thespace program, aviral pandemic,human sexuality, theenvironment,warfare, opinions on police, etc.) which are not necessarily connected.
The more destructive problem is the way this skews the discussion of the issues facing the nation. The media – meaning news sources fromFox News toThe New York Times and everything in between – seem largely incapable of dealing with any issue outside of the liberal versus conservative paradigm. Whether it's dealing withISIS, thedebt ceiling, orclimate change, the media frames every issue as a simple debate between the Democratic and the Republican positions. This creates the ludicrous idea that every public policy problem has two, and only two, approaches. That's nonsense. Certainly some problems have only two resolutions, some have only one, but most have a range of possible solutions. But the "national" debate presents every issue as a simplistic duality, which trivializes everything.
- —Michael Coblenz, 2016[57]
The two-party system, in the sense of the looser definition, where two parties dominate politics but in which third parties can elect members and gain some representation in the legislature, can be traced to the development of political parties in theUnited Kingdom. There was a division inEnglish politics at the time of theCivil War andGlorious Revolution in the late 17th century.[58] TheWhigs supportedProtestantconstitutional monarchy againstabsolute rule and theTories, originating in theRoyalist (or "Cavalier") faction of theEnglish Civil War, were conservative royalist supporters of a strong monarchy as a counterbalance to therepublican tendencies ofParliament.[59] In the following century, the Whig party's support base widened to include emerging industrial interests and wealthy merchants.
The basic matters of principle that defined the struggle between the two factions, were concerning the nature ofconstitutional monarchy, the desirability of a Catholic king, the extension ofreligious toleration tononconformist Protestants, and other issues that had been put on the liberal agenda through the political concepts propounded byJohn Locke,[60]Algernon Sidney and others.[61]
Vigorous struggle between the two factions characterised the period from theGlorious Revolution to the 1715Hanoverian succession, over the legacy of the overthrow of theStuart dynasty and the nature of the new constitutional state. This proto two-party system fell into relative abeyance after the accession to the throne ofGeorge I and the consequent period ofWhig supremacy underRobert Walpole, during which the Tories were systematically purged from high positions in government. Although the Tories were dismissed from office for 50 years, they retained a measure of party cohesion underWilliam Wyndham and acted as a united, though unavailing, opposition to Whig corruption and scandals. At times they cooperated with the "Opposition Whigs", Whigs who were in opposition to the Whig government. The ideological gap between the Tories and the Opposition Whigs prevented them from coalescing as a single party.
The old Whig leadership dissolved in the 1760s into a decade of factional chaos with distinct "Grenvillite", "Bedfordite", "Rockinghamite", and "Chathamite" factions successively in power, and all referring to themselves as "Whigs". Out of this chaos, the first distinctive parties emerged. The first such party was theRockingham Whigs[62] under the leadership ofCharles Watson-Wentworth and the intellectual guidance of thepolitical philosopherEdmund Burke. Burke laid out a philosophy that described the basic framework of the political party as "a body of men united for promoting by their joint endeavours the national interest, upon some particular principle in which they are all agreed". As opposed to the instability of the earlier factions, which were often tied to a particular leader and could disintegrate if removed from power, the two party system was centred on a set of core principles held by both sides and that allowed the party out of power to remain as theLoyal Opposition to the governing party.[63]
A genuine two-party system began to emerge,[64] with the accession to power ofWilliam Pitt the Younger in 1783 leading the new Tories, against a reconstituted "Whig" party led by theradical politicianCharles James Fox.[65][66][67]
The two-party system matured in the early 19th centuryera of political reform, when the franchise was widened and politics entered into the basic divide between conservatism and liberalism that has fundamentally endured up to the present. The modernConservative Party was created out of the"Pittite" Tories byRobert Peel, who issued theTamworth Manifesto in 1834 which set out the basic principles ofConservatism – the necessity in specific cases of reform in order to survive, but an opposition to unnecessary change, that could lead to "a perpetual vortex of agitation". Meanwhile, the Whigs, along withfree trade Tory followers ofRobert Peel, and independentRadicals, formed theLiberal Party underLord Palmerston in 1859, and transformed into a party of the growing urban middle-class, under the long leadership ofWilliam Ewart Gladstone. The two party system had come of age at the time of Gladstone and his Conservative rivalBenjamin Disraeli after theReform Act 1867.[68]
Although theFounding Fathers of the United States did not originally intend for American politics to be partisan,[69] early political controversies in the 1790s saw the emergence of a two-party political system, theFederalist Party and theDemocratic-Republican Party, centred on the differing views on federal government powers ofSecretary of the TreasuryAlexander Hamilton andJames Madison.[70][71] A consensus on these issues ended party politics in 1816 for a decade, a period commonly known as theEra of Good Feelings.[72]
Partisan politics revived in 1829 with the split of the Democratic-Republican Party into theJacksonian Democrats led byAndrew Jackson, and theWhig Party, led byHenry Clay. The former evolved into the modernDemocratic Party and the latter was replaced with theRepublican Party as one of the two main parties in the 1850s.
Malta's next legislature will feature an elected third party representative for the first time in more than 50 years, with Democratic Party leader Marlene Farrugia having made it into parliament.
The outcome also suggests that Spain, which has many small parties, is moving toward a greater two-party system – even as basic splits between right and left are deepening and becoming more contentious.
the standoff between the Federalists and their opponents, which led to the modern two-party system
Forty-eight states have the standard 'winner-takes-all' electoral system: whichever presidential ticket amasses the most popular votes in a state wins all the electors of that state.
...and another $15 million has gone toward its most valuable asset: ballot access. Americans Elect has secured a ballot line in 26 states..
The Pirate Party ... wants to legalise internet file-sharing and protect people's privacy on the net ... There *IS* a UK Pirate Party ... and there's a US ... one, and one in a few dozen others."
In the nineteenth century, third parties were single-issue creatures that grew up around great causes that the major parties were ignoring. Abolition, women's suffrage, and the direct election of senators all started as third-party movements.
Certainly, there have been a whole lot of hung parliaments and slow-forming coalitions around the world lately. (Canada, Australia, Britain, the Netherlands, Iraq...)
Italy's next parliament will have far fewer parties than the previous assembly, pushing the country closer to the two-party system that many commentators say is the only way to end years of political instability. ...
Some argue that the winner-take-all mechanism in 48 states discourages independent or third party candidates from running because it would be difficult for them to get many electoral votes.
And, as a result, more parties are represented in their parliament after the elections. The Italian Parliament, for instance, recently had more than 70 parties represented. ... These deals are cut with the smaller parties by offering them the chance to fill high government offices...
...only about eight percent of Americans feel confident in our partisan Congress ... 47 percent of Americans ... identify as independents. ...
... since both parties are cut from the same cloth of corruption and corporate influence, the American populace is left in a "crisis of creativity," ...
Definitions from Wiktionary
Quotations from Wikiquote
Data from Wikidata
