The Two Party System

By Snidely Whiplash, published Jan 12, 2008
Published Content: 223  Total Views: 34,891  Favorited By: 60 CPs
Embed:  
Rating: 4.2 of 5
As the political debate steps up in intensity, if that is even possible given the rancor of the last seven years, we run smack dab into the two party system practiced in the United States. Our system of political wrangling has its own set of considerations which differ from the parliamentary systems practiced in most of the world.

In most of the rest of the world the system in play is the parliamentary style. In such there are many different parties. For example in a "fantasy" system there would be the Liberals, Conservatives, Green Party, Social Democrats (almost the same as the American liberal), Communist, Libertarian, etc. The names in this case are made up; the ramifications of such a system are real and genuine.

For example I remember in 1978, when I fist started getting interested in politics, I heard an astounding statistic: In Italy there had been more governments than there had been years since the end of World War II! For the non-initiated, in the parliamentary system a "government" is formed after an election when numerous parties within the multi-party system get together to form a "coalition government" which then governs form a majority position.

When a nation practices a parliamentary system of governance there are many parties. Sometimes there are 15 or more political ideologies and each gets there own name and distinct identity. When a nation has so many different parties from which to choose the electorate is able to closely identify with one of the many different choices.

So, is it likely that any one party will acquire a 51% majority? Not very. When there are more than two choices a clear majority is not a very common experience. Another distinct difference between the American system and that of the parliamentary style is that when a voter casts a vote in the American system one is voting for a particular individual to lead their nation.

Takeaways
  • The US is one of the few nations that use the two party system.
  • The parliamentary model of government is in play in most of the world's nations.
  • The parliamentary system is inherently unstable and serves too many masters.
Comments
Comments 1 - 15 of 15
 
 
Is Cynthia McKinney the Green Party nominee? I'd heard she was contemplating such a run, but did not know she had committed to it.

Posted on 01/24/2008 at 12:01:29 PM

 
My understanding of parties is they started in horse and buggy days when groups of people pooled funds so that even a poor boy could campaign. I am not a party person; I vote for candidates or "waste my vote", except in local elections where even a Libertarian or Green Party candidate can actually win a City Council District seat. Now that I found out that the California Democrat head was a supporter of MeCHa and Altzan and favors the Clintons, I think I will vote for Cynthia McKinney in November.

Posted on 01/23/2008 at 11:01:18 AM

 
Agreed Monique, and if any reader drew from my article that I was saying that parliamentary politics WAS THE SOLE reason for the Nazi's rise to power, I apologize. I was merely arguing that "coalition governments" can and do often lead to someone running the show who was not what the electorate wanted. Hitler came to power with less than a majority, but in a "power-sharing" agreement that led to Hitler suspending the Constitution after the Reichstag fire and his subsequent blaming, totally falsely and 100% fabricated, the fire on Communists. It should also be remembered that Nazism came to the fore as a counter to Bolshevism.

Posted on 01/22/2008 at 12:01:10 PM

 
Just a reminder... Hitler and the Nazi's came about from much more than just German Parlimentary politics. I believe it was George Washington who said, "the two party system will be the death of the nation."

Posted on 01/21/2008 at 10:01:04 PM

 
I tend to agree with Jim on this one. I do find it fascinating to see a Perot or a John Anderson get in there to drag the two parties closer to a sensible center. With a multiple party system you tend to see more fringe elements try and implement radical economic change which can be a detriment to our economy in my view.

Posted on 01/17/2008 at 12:01:17 PM

 
First off, the reason our system is so screwed up is because the people are too easily satisfied. Nobody seriously investigates the candidatesand the result is that we just do what our party tells us to do. If there is to be a reform, it must first occur within the electorate and THEN the electorate. Secondly, Jeff seems to be very confused on this one. The parliamentary system does NOT result in more voices, it results in NO voices...at least, for the people. The parliamentary system takes so much power away from the people that it is more of an aristocracy than a representative democracy.

Posted on 01/16/2008 at 3:01:25 AM

 
Dee, I am afraid your last comment is way too true. It's a sad state for a once great nation.

Posted on 01/15/2008 at 1:01:47 PM

 
Wherever you stand, on the Pubs or Dems side, you have to agree that the voice of the people has been lost. It would be refreshing to say the least if more of the peoples voice could be heard on Capital Hill. We, in effect, are being dictated to by the powers that we insist on electing, the parties controlled by special interest and greed.

Posted on 01/15/2008 at 8:01:48 AM

 
:-) 5 Star!

Posted on 01/14/2008 at 3:01:53 PM

 
Oh yeah, Musall, conveniently leave out the fact that Bush got the majority of the popular vote in the second election. Use your facts selectively to support your skewed premise.

Posted on 01/13/2008 at 8:01:52 AM

 
The dems voted to go into Iraq, Musall. Get over it. Move on. Ask your reps to take responsibility for their decisions instead of letting them backtrack and get away with it.

Posted on 01/13/2008 at 8:01:49 AM

 
Apples and oranges, Jim...I understand that your point was demonstrative, but so was mine....what you point to as a fault in a multi-partys system (more voices) I see as a plus..and of course the Nazis were seen by many as a better alternative to Bolshevik style Communism. As for the failure of the Weimar Republic, it was because of the reasons and pressures I mentioned earlier. That the system was parliamentary is only incidental.

Posted on 01/12/2008 at 10:01:37 PM

 
Jeff, my use of the parties was by chance. I intended absolutely no advantage or disadvantage to Conservatives over Liberals or any other such combination. I thought to mention my examples were merely random and any "party" could be plugged in place of another for the sake of the demonstration. As to your disagreement with my contention of the rise of the Nazi's, I'm afraid ENCARTA begs to differ. They specifically point to the failure of the parliamentary Weimar Republic as what gave rise to the Nazi's. Should I have thrown in that the Nazi's also gained momentum as a counter balance to your pal Marx and the Bolsheviks' rise to power in the USSR? I know you don't like to hear that, but it's the truth, my Brother. Even Stalin himself believed this and there were numerous tangential mentions of this very fact in Communist and Nazi writings.

Posted on 01/12/2008 at 8:01:09 PM

 
On the contrary, Deez...everything said here isn't right. And you are right suggesting we need at least one (I would say many) more parties. Here's why...Jim, in his scenario, suggests that the conservative party got the most votes, but could be exempted from the process by a coalition. Isn't that, in effect, what happened to Gore? Here is another problem....in the Bush admin, there was no liberal voice anywhere. Shut out of all branches, there was no effective "balance." Bush was allowed to run amok, and the world is the worse for it. A multi-party coalition allows for more voices, and usually, more progress. Of course, American conservatives wouldn't like it, because when in power they have ruled from minority, if one takes into account the positions of the majority of Americans. And one more thing...parliamentary system didn't "give us the Nazis" what played a huge role was a so-called "free market" that destroys the economy of all but a priveleged few. Of course, there were other f

Posted on 01/12/2008 at 11:01:55 AM

 
Everything you say here is true. However, I feel our two party system is in need of at least one more party. One that represents the rest of us who are not happy with the Dem's or Pub's. A strong third party alternative couldn't hurt. Good work BTW Jim 5 of 5!

Posted on 01/12/2008 at 10:01:43 AM

Type in Your Comments Below - (1000 characters left)
Your name:

Submit your own content on this or any topic. Get started »
Comments 1 - 15 of 15
 
Advertisment