What four factors help to explain the existence of Americas two party system?
Learning Objectives
By the end of this section, you will exist able to:
- Depict the effects of winner-take-all elections
- Compare plurality and proportional representation
- Depict the institutional, legal, and social forces that limit the number of parties
- Discuss the concepts of party alignment and realignment
One of the cornerstones of a vibrant commonwealth is citizens' ability to influence government through voting. In order for that influence to be meaningful, citizens must ship clear signals to their leaders most what they wish the government to do. Information technology only makes sense, so, that a democracy will benefit if voters have several clearly differentiated options bachelor to them at the polls on Election Day. Having these options ways voters tin can select a candidate who more closely represents their own preferences on the important issues of the day. It likewise gives individuals who are considering voting a reason to participate. After all, you are more probable to vote if y'all intendance well-nigh who wins and who loses. The being of two major parties, especially in our present era of strong parties, leads to sharp distinctions betwixt the candidates and between the political party organizations.
Why do nosotros have ii parties? The two-political party system came into being because the structure of U.Due south. elections, with one seat tied to a geographic district, tends to lead to potency by 2 major political parties. Fifty-fifty when there are other options on the ballot, near voters sympathize that minor parties have no real chance of winning even a single office. Hence, they vote for candidates of the ii major parties in social club to support a potential winner. Of the 535 members of the House and Senate, only a handful identify as something other than Republican or Democrat. Third parties accept fared no better in presidential elections. No third-party candidate has always won the presidency. Some historians or political scientists might consider Abraham Lincoln to have been such a candidate, just in 1860, the Republicans were a major political party that had subsumed members of earlier parties, such as the Whig Party, and they were the only major party other than the Democratic Party.
Ballot Rules and the Two-Party Organisation
A number of reasons have been suggested to explain why the structure of U.Southward. elections has resulted in a two-party organization. Almost of the blame has been placed on the procedure used to select its representatives. First, almost elections at the land and national levels are winner-take-all: The candidate who receives the greatest overall number of votes wins. Winner-have-all elections with one representative elected for one geographic commune permit voters to develop a personal human relationship with "their" representative to the government. They know exactly whom to blame, or give thanks, for the deportment of that government. Simply these elections likewise tend to limit the number of people who run for office. Otherwise-qualified candidates might not stand up for election if they feel the incumbent or another candidate has an early reward in the race. And since voters do not like to waste votes, third parties must convince voters they have a existent gamble of winning races earlier voters will take them seriously. This is a alpine order given the vast resources and mobilization tools available to the existing parties, especially if an incumbent is one of the competitors. In plough, the likelihood that third-party challengers volition lose an election bid makes it more than difficult to heighten funds to support later attempts.[1]
Winner-take-all systems of electing candidates to part, which exist in several countries other than the U.s., crave that the winner receive either the majority of votes or a plurality of the votes. U.S. elections are based on plurality voting. Plurality voting, commonly referred to as outset-by-the-post, is based on the principle that the individual candidate with the almost votes wins, whether or not he or she gains a majority (51 percent or greater) of the total votes cast. For instance, Abraham Lincoln won the presidency in 1860 even though he clearly lacked majority back up given the number of candidates in the race. In 1860, 4 candidates competed for the presidency: Lincoln, a Republican; two Democrats, one from the northern wing of the party and one from the southern fly; and a member of the newly formed Constitutional Union Party, a southern party that wished to prevent the nation from dividing over the issue of slavery. Votes were dissever amid all iv parties, and Lincoln became president with only twoscore percent of the vote, not a majority of votes cast but more than any of the other 3 candidates had received, and enough to give him a majority in the Electoral Higher, the body that ultimately decides presidential elections. Plurality voting has been justified as the simplest and most cost-effective method for identifying a victor in a democracy. A unmarried ballot can be held on a single solar day, and the victor of the competition is easily selected. On the other mitt, systems in which people vote for a single candidate in an private district oftentimes toll more than money considering drawing district lines and registering voters co-ordinate to district is often expensive and cumbersome.[ii]
In a arrangement in which individual candidates compete for private seats representing unique geographic districts, a candidate must receive a adequately big number of votes in order to win. A political political party that appeals to merely a minor percentage of voters volition e'er lose to a party that is more popular.[iii]
Considering 2nd-place (or lower) finishers volition receive no reward for their efforts, those parties that do not attract enough supporters to finish first at to the lowest degree some of the time will eventually disappear considering their supporters realize they have no hope of achieving success at the polls.[iv] The failure of tertiary parties to win and the possibility that they will draw votes abroad from the party the voter had favored before—resulting in a win for the party the voter liked least—makes people hesitant to vote for the third party'due south candidates a second time. This has been the fate of all U.Southward. tertiary parties—the Populist Political party, the Progressives, the Dixiecrats, the Reform Party, and others.
In a proportional electoral system, still, parties advertise who is on their candidate listing and voters pick a party. So, legislative seats are doled out to the parties based on the proportion of support each political party receives. While the Green Party in the Usa might not win a single congressional seat in some years thanks to plurality voting, in a proportional system, it stands a adventure to get a few seats in the legislature regardless. For example, presume the Greenish Party gets 7 percent of the vote. In the United States, 7 percent will never be plenty to win a single seat, shutting the Green candidates out of Congress entirely, whereas in a proportional organization, the Greenish Political party will get seven percent of the full number of legislative seats available. Hence, it could get a foothold for its bug and perhaps increment its support over time. Merely with plurality voting, it doesn't stand a chance.
Third parties, often born of frustration with the current organization, attract supporters from one or both of the existing parties during an ballot but fail to concenter plenty votes to win. After the election is over, supporters experience remorse when their least-favorite candidate wins instead. For example, in the 2000 election, Ralph Nader ran for president every bit the candidate of the Light-green Party. Nader, a longtime consumer activist concerned with ecology bug and social justice, attracted many votes from people who usually voted for Autonomous candidates. This has caused some to claim that Democratic nominee Al Gore lost the 2000 election to Republican George West. Bush, because Nader won Democratic votes in Florida that might otherwise have gone to Gore.[5]
Ralph Nader, a longtime consumer advocate and crusader for social justice and the environment, campaigned as an independent in 2008 (a). However, in 2000, he ran for the presidency equally the Light-green Party candidate. He received votes from many Democrats, and some analysts claim Nader'due south campaign price Al Gore the presidency—an ironic twist for a politico who would come to be known primarily for his ecology activism, even winning the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 (b) for his efforts to inform the public almost climate change. (credit a: modification of work past "Mely-o"/Flikr"; credit b: modification of piece of work by "kangotraveler"/Flickr)
Abandoning plurality voting, fifty-fifty if the winner-take-all election were kept, would almost certainly increment the number of parties from which voters could choose. The easiest switch would be to a majoritarian voting scheme, in which a candidate wins only if he or she enjoys the support of a bulk of voters. If no candidate wins a majority in the first circular of voting, a run-off election is held among the top contenders. Some states carry their principal elections within the two major political parties in this way.
A second way to increase the number of parties in the U.S. system is to abandon the winner-take-all approach. Rather than assuasive voters to choice their representatives directly, many democracies accept called to take voters pick their preferred party and allow the party to select the individuals who serve in regime. The statement for this method is that information technology is ultimately the party and not the individual who will influence policy. Nether this model of proportional representation, legislative seats are allocated to competing parties based on the total share of votes they receive in the ballot. Equally a result, any given election can have multiple winners, and voters who might prefer a smaller party over a major ane have a chance to exist represented in authorities.
While a U.S. ballot (a) for first-past-the-post elections features candidates' names, the ballots of proportional representation countries listing the parties. On this Russian ballot (b), the voter is offered a option of Social Autonomous, Nationalist, Socialist, and Communist parties, among others.
One possible fashion to implement proportional representation in the United states of america is to classify legislative seats based on the national level of support for each political party's presidential candidate, rather than on the results of individual races. If this method had been used in the 1996 elections, 8 percent of the seats in Congress would take gone to Ross Perot'south Reform Party because he won eight percent of the votes cast. Even though Perot himself lost, his supporters would accept been rewarded for their efforts with representatives who had a real voice in regime. And Perot's party's chances of survival would have greatly increased.
Electoral rules are probably not the only reason the U.s.a. has a ii-political party organization. Nosotros need only await at the number of parties in the British or Canadian systems, both of which are winner-take-all plurality systems like that in the United States, to see that it is possible to have more than two parties while yet directly electing representatives. The two-party system is besides rooted in U.S. history. The showtime parties, the Federalists and the Jeffersonian Republicans, disagreed virtually how much power should exist given to the federal government, and differences over other important bug further strengthened this divide. Over time, these parties evolved into others by inheriting, for the well-nigh office, the general ideological positions and constituents of their predecessors, but no more two major parties always formed. Instead of parties arising based on region or ethnicity, various regions and indigenous groups sought a place in one of the two major parties.
Scholars of voting behavior accept as well suggested at least three other characteristics of the U.Southward. organization that are likely to influence party outcomes: the Electoral College, demobilized ethnicity, and campaign and election laws. First, the United States has a presidential system in which the winner is selected non directly past the popular vote just indirectly by a grouping of electors known collectively every bit the Electoral College. The winner-take-all organization likewise applies in the Balloter College. In all but two states (Maine and Nebraska), the full of the state's electoral votes go to the candidate who wins the plurality of the popular vote in that land. Even if a new, third party is able to win the support of a lot of voters, it must be able to practise so in several states in social club to win enough electoral votes to have a take chances of winning the presidency.[6]
As well the existence of the Balloter College, political scientist Gary Due west. Cox has also suggested that the relative prosperity of the United States and the relative unity of its citizens have prevented the formation of "large dissenting groups" that might give support to 3rd parties.[7] This is like to the argument that the Us does not have viable 3rd parties, because none of its regions is dominated by mobilized ethnic minorities that have created political parties in order to defend and to address concerns solely of interest to that ethnic group. Such parties are common in other countries.
Finally, party success is strongly influenced by local election laws. Someone has to write the rules that govern elections, and those rules help to decide outcomes. In the United States, such rules have been written to make it easy for existing parties to secure a spot for their candidates in future elections. But some states create pregnant burdens for candidates who wish to run every bit independents or who choose to stand for new parties. For instance, one common practice is to require a candidate who does non have the support of a major party to enquire registered voters to sign a petition. Sometimes, thousands of signatures are required before a candidate's name can be placed on the ballot, but a small-scale third party that does have big numbers of supporters in some states may non exist able to secure plenty signatures for this to happen.[viii]
Costa Constantinides (right), while campaigning in 2013 to represent the 22nd District on the New York Urban center Council, said, "Few things are more important to a campaign than the petition process to get on the ballot. Nosotros were and then pumped up to get started that we went out at 12:01 a.yard. on June four to start collecting signatures right away!" Constantinides won the election later that year. (credit: modification of work by Costa Constantinides)
Visit Fair Vote for a word of ballot admission laws across the state.
Given the obstacles to the formation of third parties, information technology is unlikely that serious challenges to the U.South. two-party system will sally. But this does not mean that we should view it every bit entirely stable either. The U.Southward. party organization is technically a loose organization of fifty different land parties and has undergone several considerable changes since its initial consolidation afterwards the Civil War. Third-party movements may take played a role in some of these changes, merely all resulted in a shifting of party loyalties amid the U.S. electorate.
Critical Elections and Realignment
Political parties be for the purpose of winning elections in lodge to influence public policy. This requires them to build coalitions across a wide range of voters who share similar preferences. Since most U.Due south. voters identify every bit moderates,[nine] the historical tendency has been for the two parties to compete for "the middle" while also trying to mobilize their more than loyal bases. If voters' preferences remained stable for long periods of time, and if both parties did a good job of competing for their votes, we could expect Republicans and Democrats to be reasonably competitive in whatsoever given election. Election outcomes would probably exist based on the way voters compared the parties on the most important events of the 24-hour interval rather than on electoral strategy.
There are many reasons nosotros would exist incorrect in these expectations, however. Offset, the electorate isn't entirely stable. Each generation of voters has been a bit different from the last. Over time, the United States has become more than socially liberal, specially on topics related to race and gender, and millennials—those anile eighteen–34—are more liberal than members of older generations.[10] The electorate'southward economic preferences have changed, and unlike social groups are likely to become more engaged in politics at present than they did in the past. Surveys conducted in 2016, for example, revealed that candidates' religion is less important to voters than it in one case was. Also, as young Latinos achieve voting age, they seem more inclined to vote than exercise their parents, which may raise the traditionally depression voting rates amongst this ethnic group.[11] Internal population shifts and displacements have also occurred, as various regions have taken their turn experiencing economic growth or stagnation, and as new waves of immigrants have come to U.S. shores.
Additionally, the major parties have not always been unified in their arroyo to battling elections. While we call up of both Congress and the presidency every bit national offices, the reality is that congressional elections are sometimes more than like local elections. Voters may reflect on their preferences for national policy when deciding whom to send to the Senate or the House of Representatives, but they are very probable to view national policy in the context of its furnishings on their area, their family, or themselves, not based on what is happening to the country as a whole. For example, while many voters want to reduce the federal budget, those over sixty-five are particularly concerned that no cuts to the Medicare program exist made.[12] 1-third of those polled reported that "senior's problems" were about important to them when voting for national officeholders.[13] If they hope to keep their jobs, elected officials must thus exist sensitive to preferences in their home constituencies too equally the preferences of their national party.
Finally, it sometimes happens that over a series of elections, parties may be unable or unwilling to adapt their positions to broader socio-demographic or economic forces. Parties demand to exist enlightened when society changes. If leaders refuse to recognize that public stance has changed, the party is unlikely to win in the next election. For instance, people who depict themselves as evangelical Christians are an of import Republican constituency; they are also strongly opposed to abortion.[fourteen] Thus, even though the bulk of U.S. adults believe abortion should be legal in at to the lowest degree some instances, such as when a pregnancy is the effect of rape or incest, or threatens the life of the female parent, the position of many Republican presidential candidates in 2016 was to oppose abortion in all cases.[xv]
As a result, many women view the Republican Party as unsympathetic to their interests and are more likely to support Autonomous candidates.[16] Similarly (or simultaneously), groups that have felt that the party has served their causes in the past may decide to look elsewhere if they feel their needs are no longer existence met. Either way, the political party system volition be upended as a event of a party realignment, or a shifting of party allegiances within the electorate.[17]
| Periods of Political party Dominance and Realignment | |
|---|---|
| Era | Party Systems and Realignments |
| 1796–1824 | Get-go Party System: Federalists (urban elites, southern planters, New England) oppose Democratic-Republicans (rural, small farmers and artisans, the Southward and the West). |
| 1828–1856 | 2d Political party Arrangement: Democrats (the South, cities, farmers and artisans, immigrants) oppose Whigs (former Federalists, the North, middle class, native-built-in Americans). |
| 1860–1892 | Third Party System: Republicans (quondam Whigs plus African Americans) command the presidency. Just one Democrat, Grover Cleveland, is elected president (1884, 1892). |
| 1896–1932 | Fourth Party Organization: Republicans command the presidency. Only ane Democrat, Woodrow Wilson, is elected president (1912, 1916). Challenges to major parties are raised by Populists and Progressives. |
| 1932–1964 | Fifth Party System. Democrats command the presidency. Only i Republican, Dwight Eisenhower, is elected president (1952, 1956). Major party realignment as African Americans become part of the Autonomous coalition. |
| 1964–nowadays | 6th Party System. No one party controls the presidency. Ongoing realignment every bit southern whites and many northern members of the working class begin to vote for Republicans. Latinos and Asians immigrate, nearly of whom vote for Democrats. |
One of the all-time-known party realignments occurred when Democrats moved to include African Americans and other minorities into their national coalition during the Bang-up Depression. After the Civil War, Republicans, the party of Lincoln, were viewed every bit the party that had freed the slaves. Their efforts to provide blacks with greater legal rights earned them the support of African Americans in both the Due south, where they were newly enfranchised, and the Northeast. When the Democrats, the party of the Confederacy, lost control of the S after the Civil War, Republicans ruled the region. However, the Democrats regained command of the South after the removal of the Marriage army in 1877. Democrats had largely supported slavery earlier the Civil War, and they opposed postwar efforts to integrate African Americans into society later they were liberated. In addition, Democrats in the N and Midwest drew their greatest back up from labor wedlock members and immigrants who viewed African Americans as competitors for jobs and authorities resource, and who thus tended to oppose the extension of rights to African Americans as much as their southern counterparts did.[18]
While the Democrats' opposition to ceremonious rights may have provided regional advantages in southern or urban elections, it was largely disastrous for national politics. From 1868 to 1931, Democratic candidates won just four of 16 presidential elections. Two of these victories can be explained equally a event of the spoiler effect of the Progressive Party in 1912 and and so Woodrow Wilson'south reelection during World War I in 1916. This rather-dismal success rate suggested that a change in the governing coalition would be needed if the party were to have a hazard at once again becoming a actor on the national level.
That change began with the 1932 presidential campaign of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. FDR adamant that his best path toward victory was to create a new coalition based non on region or ethnicity, simply on the suffering of those hurt the most during the Dandy Low. This alignment sought to bring African American voters in every bit a means of shoring up support in major urban areas and the Midwest, where many southern blacks had migrated in the decades after the Civil War in search of jobs and ameliorate education for their children, as well as to avert many of the legal restrictions placed on them in the South. Roosevelt accomplished this realignment by promising assistance to those hurt well-nigh past the Low, including African Americans.
The strategy worked. Roosevelt won the election with almost 58 percent of the popular vote and 472 Balloter Higher votes, compared to incumbent Herbert Hoover'due south 59. The 1932 ballot is considered an example of a critical election, 1 that represents a sudden, articulate, and long-term shift in voter allegiances. After this election, the political parties were largely identified as being divided past differences in their members' socio-economic status. Those who favor stability of the current political and economical system tend to vote Republican, whereas those who would about do good from changing the system usually favor Democratic candidates. Based on this alignment, the Democratic Party won the next five consecutive presidential elections and was able to build a political auto that dominated Congress into the 1990s, including holding an uninterrupted majority in the House of Representatives from 1954 until 1994.
The realignment of the parties did have consequences for Democrats. African Americans became an increasingly of import part of the Democratic coalition in the 1940s through the 1960s, as the party took steps to support civil rights.[19] Most changes were limited to the state level at offset, but as civil rights reform moved to the national phase, rifts between northern and southern Democrats began to sally.[twenty]
Southern Democrats became increasingly convinced that national efforts to provide social welfare and encourage racial integration were violating state sovereignty and social norms. By the 1970s, many had begun to shift their allegiance to the Republican Political party, whose pro-business organization wing shared their opposition to the growing encroachment of the national authorities into what they viewed as land and local matters.[21]
Well-nigh fifty years after it had begun, the realignment of the two political parties resulted in the flipping of mail-Ceremonious War allegiances, with urban areas and the Northeast at present solidly Democratic, and the South and rural areas overwhelmingly voting Republican. The result today is a political organisation that provides Republicans with considerable advantages in rural areas and virtually parts of the Deep South.[22] Democrats boss urban politics and those parts of the Due south, known as the Black Chugalug, where the majority of residents are African American.
Summary
Electoral rules, such every bit the use of plurality voting, accept helped plow the United States into a 2-party system dominated by the Republicans and the Democrats. Several pocket-sized parties have attempted to challenge the status quo, merely usually they have only been spoilers that served to divide party coalitions. But this doesn't mean the party system has always been stable; party coalitions have shifted several times in the past two hundred years.
Exercise Questions
- What impact, if whatsoever, do third parties typically have on U.S. elections?
- In what means do political parties collude with state and local government to preclude the rising of new parties?
Show Selected Answer
ane. Third parties bring important issues to the attention of the major parties. They as well oftentimes serve equally spoilers in the elections they enter.
severinbefordents.blogspot.com
Source: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/amgovernment/chapter/the-two-party-system/
0 Response to "What four factors help to explain the existence of Americas two party system?"
Post a Comment