Two Party System Pros And Cons
We have all either heard or used the idiom, two is company, three’s a crowd and this saying can very well be implied to both the two party system of America as well as the third parties in America. Known to our great nation is the two party systems, the Democratic and Republicans. This two party system came about due to a two sided constitution which consisted of an opposing or supporting group or to be clearly defined, the majority squad and minority squad. There was definitely no in between going on here, these were only two parties that one could be a part of. This two party system dominates the United States government and although there is many ways this system is beneficial for promoting public good; it has also been criticized for its disadvantages which include lack of dissenting opinions, apathy of voters due to lack of alternatives and their tendency to ignore different and radical voices. “Today many Americans take pride in their status as “independent voters”, partly because they see parties as lacking vision for the country”. “Since many Americans have become disenchanted by partisan politics, they avoid identification as a “loyal democrat” or a “staunch Republican”. “These negative attitudes towards parties are rooted in the roles that they play in American politics”(ushistory.org 2015).
Third parties serve as …show more content…
an important element of the two party political systems in the United States. The third parties in the United States step in as policy liaisons and have provided displeased voters other options. Third parties in America play a very important role in keeping elections interesting and have been known to spoil the vote of major parties causing an upset or extremely close election.
Rooted from social movements and formed by activists, the third party founder’s primary goal is to influence the public policy supporting their cause which is much more exclusive and specific whereas the two major parties work towards and have the same goal. Third parties have also provided a bold and aggressive voice for those in America that feel estranged from the two major parties.
Although short-lived because issues are constantly evolving, the Issue Advocacy Party was formed to promote a stance on a particular issue such as The Green Party, a group of environmentalist who broke away from the Democrats and promoted environmental protection as their primary issue. The Green Party only obtained three percent of the popular vote in the 2000 presidential election and after the 2004 election; the popular vote had decreased to less than one percent (Harrison & Harris, 2011). Other issues also addressed in their 2000 platform were those of greed, corruption, globalization and human rights.
Ideologically oriented party agendas are typically deeper than that of an issue advocacy party. This type of party is made up of a group of people who feel strongly about a particular issue and focuses exclusively on that issue. These parties are structured around ideology or a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy. This type of third party includes Libertarian Party who stands on principles of liberty, freedom, sovereignty over their own lives and their belief that no one should be forced to sacrifice his or her own values for the benefit of others. Their ideological position is that government should not interfere with individuals’ social, political and economic rights. The Socialist party which is one of the longest standing ideologically orientated parties in the United States also falls within this party, they strive to establish a radical democracy that places people’s lives under their own control and their belief is socialism and democracy are one and indivisible. Their ideological position is that the government should pay a large role in ensuring economic equality for all people.
Lastly, Splinter Parties consists of a small organization such as a religious sect, typically a political party that breaks or “splinters” off from the major party.
Splinter groups form because of internal disagreements on a particular issue such as ideology differences, certain beliefs, moral ethics, values and or principles. The Tea Party, still a part of the Republican Party because candidates do not run for election as “Tea Party candidates” per say are regarded as a splinter party due to ongoing conflicts of illegal immigration, the right to bear arms, the end of deficit spending and less government control with the Republican
Party.
Despite having little status in society and lack of success in the poles with no electoral triumphs in the United States, third parties in more ways than one influence election results and local level politics. Third parties are able to come up with new ideas such as government policies and practices as the example pointed out by SparkNotes Editors (2010) in which the Populist Party introduced ideas that influenced some economic policies of the New Deal, whereas the Anti-Masonic Party was the first party to use a convention to nominate its candidates, in the mid nineteenth century. Third parties incorporate issues to agendas and are taken seriously as did Ross Perot, the independent candidate who emphasized the budget deficit in his campaign back in 1992 when Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush didn’t talk much about it (SparkNotes Editors 2010). They are also able to spoil the election; a third party candidate has the ability to collect enough votes which totally changes the outcome of a Presidential election. Another example noted by SparkNotes Editors (2010) referencing a spoiler in that some pundits argued that Ralph Nader’s bid in the 2000 presidential election may have cost Al Gore the presidency by siphoning away votes in key states such as Florida. Third parties may not be effective at the national level but they do attempt to influence the national political agenda by bringing forth attention to particular issues. Even if the third party has a zero chance of winning an election government official within the two major parties must and will respond to their issues of concern otherwise a strong and adverse repercussion will occur.
Although faced with many hurdles, barriers and red tape like the winner-take all system in which the rules state that a slim majority of voters can control one hundred percent of seats leaving everyone else without representation and campaign finance rules which state that if a candidate does not receive at least five percent of the popular vote in the presidential election the party does not qualify for federal matching funding as in the case of Ralph Nader in 2000 where the federal matching funds were cut off by two percent, so the Green Party did not receive the funds in the 2004 presidential election (Harrison & Harris, 2011).
Third parties serve as …show more content…
an important element of the two party political systems in the United States. The third parties in the United States step in as policy liaisons and have provided displeased voters other options. Third parties in America play a very important role in keeping elections interesting and have been known to spoil the vote of major parties causing an upset or extremely close election.
Rooted from social movements and formed by activists, the third party founder’s primary goal is to influence the public policy supporting their cause which is much more exclusive and specific whereas the two major parties work towards and have the same goal. Third parties have also provided a bold and aggressive voice for those in America that feel estranged from the two major parties.
Although short-lived because issues are constantly evolving, the Issue Advocacy Party was formed to promote a stance on a particular issue such as The Green Party, a group of environmentalist who broke away from the Democrats and promoted environmental protection as their primary issue. The Green Party only obtained three percent of the popular vote in the 2000 presidential election and after the 2004 election; the popular vote had decreased to less than one percent (Harrison & Harris, 2011). Other issues also addressed in their 2000 platform were those of greed, corruption, globalization and human rights.
Ideologically oriented party agendas are typically deeper than that of an issue advocacy party. This type of party is made up of a group of people who feel strongly about a particular issue and focuses exclusively on that issue. These parties are structured around ideology or a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy. This type of third party includes Libertarian Party who stands on principles of liberty, freedom, sovereignty over their own lives and their belief that no one should be forced to sacrifice his or her own values for the benefit of others. Their ideological position is that government should not interfere with individuals’ social, political and economic rights. The Socialist party which is one of the longest standing ideologically orientated parties in the United States also falls within this party, they strive to establish a radical democracy that places people’s lives under their own control and their belief is socialism and democracy are one and indivisible. Their ideological position is that the government should pay a large role in ensuring economic equality for all people.
Lastly, Splinter Parties consists of a small organization such as a religious sect, typically a political party that breaks or “splinters” off from the major party.
Splinter groups form because of internal disagreements on a particular issue such as ideology differences, certain beliefs, moral ethics, values and or principles. The Tea Party, still a part of the Republican Party because candidates do not run for election as “Tea Party candidates” per say are regarded as a splinter party due to ongoing conflicts of illegal immigration, the right to bear arms, the end of deficit spending and less government control with the Republican
Party.
Despite having little status in society and lack of success in the poles with no electoral triumphs in the United States, third parties in more ways than one influence election results and local level politics. Third parties are able to come up with new ideas such as government policies and practices as the example pointed out by SparkNotes Editors (2010) in which the Populist Party introduced ideas that influenced some economic policies of the New Deal, whereas the Anti-Masonic Party was the first party to use a convention to nominate its candidates, in the mid nineteenth century. Third parties incorporate issues to agendas and are taken seriously as did Ross Perot, the independent candidate who emphasized the budget deficit in his campaign back in 1992 when Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush didn’t talk much about it (SparkNotes Editors 2010). They are also able to spoil the election; a third party candidate has the ability to collect enough votes which totally changes the outcome of a Presidential election. Another example noted by SparkNotes Editors (2010) referencing a spoiler in that some pundits argued that Ralph Nader’s bid in the 2000 presidential election may have cost Al Gore the presidency by siphoning away votes in key states such as Florida. Third parties may not be effective at the national level but they do attempt to influence the national political agenda by bringing forth attention to particular issues. Even if the third party has a zero chance of winning an election government official within the two major parties must and will respond to their issues of concern otherwise a strong and adverse repercussion will occur.
Although faced with many hurdles, barriers and red tape like the winner-take all system in which the rules state that a slim majority of voters can control one hundred percent of seats leaving everyone else without representation and campaign finance rules which state that if a candidate does not receive at least five percent of the popular vote in the presidential election the party does not qualify for federal matching funding as in the case of Ralph Nader in 2000 where the federal matching funds were cut off by two percent, so the Green Party did not receive the funds in the 2004 presidential election (Harrison & Harris, 2011).