Is a two party system inherently less democratic than democracies which have many different factions and parties? I’ve seen several posters in the past make the statement that America’s version of democracy is not democratic because we are essentially a two party system. My understanding of multiparty systems (More than two party systems? Not sure of the term) such as many of the European democracies have, are basically coalitian governments and aren’t as efficient or as effective. So, I guess the debate points I’d like to hear are:
Is America’s two party system inherently less democratic? Or is it undemocratic?
Is a multiparty system more effective or democratic than a two party system? What makes it better? What makes it more democratic?
Would America benifit from a stronger 3rd party? Being an independant, I’ve often wished that my party was stronger, but would it actually be a good thing for America if it was?
What would have to happen for a viable 3rd party to emerge? What would happen if more than 3 parties were strong enough to get elected? Would we be more ‘democratic’ if this were the case? Would we be percieved as more democratic by ‘the world’ if this was the case? Would the government still be effective?
Does ‘the worlds’ democracies look down on the US because we have only two viable parties? I’ve seen several posts commenting about it, but whats the general consensus? To each his own or we are better than you?
Hope this is a good debate and brings out some very interesting viewpoints. I’m very curious about this topic as I’m an America who is a third party guy living in a country dominated by the big two.
I realize this doesn’t answer all the questions you pose, but I don’t believe the American system can accurately be described as “a two party system.” There are a couple of reasons for this.
First, there are numerous other parties actively pursuing their own agendas in American politics. The Green Party, the Libertarian Party, and the Reform Party are three fairly prominent examples. Obviously, the “other” parties are not as large as the Democratic and Republican parties, but that doesn’t negate their existence. In fact, numerous major parties have come into and faded from prominence as the country’s agenda has changed. The Whig party was one of the nation’s main parties (a number of American Presidents were members of the Whig Party) until it disintegrated in the 1850s following the rise of the Republican party. Another example is the American Independent Party, which was founded by George Wallace and carried 5 Southern states in the 1968(?) Presidential election. In my opinion, most Americans vote Dem or Repub because they feel those two parties adequately represent their political ideologies, and not because there are no viable alternatives.
Second, I think the phrase “two party system” doesn’t acknowledge the differences within the parties. At the most basic level, voters vote for individuals who represent their opinions, rather than for party affiliation. For example, Southern Dems tend to be more pro-gun than Northern Dems. While representatives vote down party lines on numerous issues, this doesn’t accurately represent the behind-the-scenes jockeying for position within the parties. Sticking with the gun control example, Southern Dems tend to push their Northern brethren toward more moderate positions on gun issues. And in fact, representatives from both sides of the aisles often cross party lines on issues. An example is the war in Iraq – Joe Lieberman and John Kerry are two Dems with very different ideas on the war in Iraq.
I think that all that is necessary for a third party to rise to prominence is a change in the opinions of the American electorate that is not represented by the two main parties. Ross Perot is a good example of how third parties can influence the Dems and Repubs to change their policies to meet the changing opinions of the electorate (Repubs started arguing for a flat(ter) tax and Dems strengthened their opposition to the threat to American labor posed by free trade, and both parties started trending away from deficit spending). But if the electorate ever felt that the Dems or Repubs weren’t meeting their needs, then I don’t think they’d have any problem abandoning their party affiliation.
I have no idea how the international community views the American system. However, many foriegn countries tend to have more party labels, but they cross party labels to form ruling coalitions that end up approximating our two-party system. Franly, I don’t see much difference between Italy (which has a large number of parties forming alliances on major issues) and the American system (which has two main parties, but innumerable ideological slants within those parties).
The danger in having three (or more) strong parties is that of coalition government. It isn’t hard to imagine scenarios in which two minority parties merge forces, in such a way as to pass laws which are actually opposed by a majority of the people.
Another danger, as seen in Israel, is two large but roughly equal parties, neither of which can actually form a government, and thus both are required to court extremist minority parties.
Of course, Kenneth J. Arrow won the Nobel Prize in Economics for proving, mathematically, that no system is going to be free from flaws…
Personally, I favor having a strong opposition, which may not be able to legislate, but which can delay the government from passing odious legislation. It’s no fun at all when “your side” can’t even muster a filibuster, mister!
The difference with the US system and multy party system is that the multiple parties all have their program = they don’t form fractions that ultimately are overruled by the majority in their party.
Multiple parties have their own program and the voter chooses his party because he feels himself to be in line with that particular program.
The fact that coalitions are a necessity make the programs of the parties who won the elections effectively all point of discussion when forming the government.
Further represents the opposition also variety of different parties with different standpoints. Which makes that opposition not only much more lively, but also much more an effective critical instrument.
Overall this is a much more democratic system then having two major parties wherein the little fractions are drowned and silenced by the majority. It gives a lot more choices to the voter.
In a country where there is no obligation to vote this could have as result that getting interested in politics becomes a lot more attractive for the now desinterested and thus non-voting population.
As for your question if “the world looks down on the USA” because of its political system, I wouldn’t know.
My opinion is that I wouldn’t like to live in such a system where the elections are every time again such a circus.
I find that not only denegrating for several reasons, one being the fact that is is cristal clear that not politics, but money rules. Wich leads to the result that ultimately it comes down to it that the best and most agressively advertised product wins.
My impression is that the US system is the typical product of the US capitalistic system.
You can’t export that and I guess it will be very difficult to change it.
Before dismissing our two parties as “less democratic” than multiparty systems, I think one must consider how open our two parties are. I’m not an expert on nomination procedures in other countries, but I don’t think too many have anything quite like the American primary system where outsiders routinely seek and win nominations to major office.
Whereas a European election might see five parties duking it out, a typical American election might have a religious rightist, a neocon, and a libertarian competing in the Republican primary, with a greenie versus a moderate liberal in the Democratic primary. I believe this is one reason why third parties don’t gain traction; it’s easier to just run for a D or R nomination.
America’s system is less democratic in that we are a republic and not a democracy (just a pet peeve of mine). I don’t think though that having a two party system as opposed to any other makes us less democratic. I do however think it means that our government is less a representative of the wishes of the people, because of it, and I think that is what you meant by your question.
**
**
It can be more effective and a better representative of the wishes of the people. It is not inherently so though. Governments are always the products of the members of them, and the pressure exerted by the populace. However when dealing with the US, I think that a larger party system would be much more effective and more ‘democratic’.
One of the biggest detriments of having fewer parties is the fact that not all views get represented. Right now in the US, I believe our voter turnout rate is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 40% of elligible voters. Of these, it appears from the polls i’ve seen, that about 20% (of total number) appear to be hard line republicans (agree 80+% of the party line), another 20% appear to be hard line democrats, while the remaining 60% fill the massive spectrum between the two parties. Typically, this middle group will vote based on one or three ‘core’ issues that they find most important, voting with one party or the other, even though they do not necessarily agree with them.
For the representatives the situation is similar, only, typically members are pressured to ‘tow the party line’ whether they aggree or not. Not true of all reps. in all instances of course, but certainly a lot of major votes, and internal party backscratching gets done this way.
Another major detriment to having fewer parties, is that it makes it easier for rich and powerful individuals or industries to buy votes. Right now, it’s pretty much garunteed that in most cases, either a republican or a democrat is going to get any particular office. If someone wishes to push for something locally, they usually have only two or fewer people they need to worry about bribin…er contributing to. If they wish to push for something nationally, they only have two parties to brib…er contribute to. Those ‘contributions’ would be much less potent, if spread among 4 parties, and certainly much less potent if there were more independants capable of running for major offices.
**
**
I would hope that many necessary government, economic, military, education, industry, environmental, foreign policy, and campaign finance reforms would happen. However, with the level of political apathy present in the open population today, I doubt having ten parties would affect much. I don’t know if it would change our image globally, but without foreign policy reform, I doubt it would. But yes, I think any system of government can be effective as long as its members and its populace try and make it so.
**
**
I think the worlds democracies look down on us for much more important reasons than having only two parties.
The two party system is less democratic than one with more parties but that is not a bad thing. It makes the government more stable by filtering out extremists. Also it ensures that most of winners of elective office get close to a majority of votes. If there were four viable parties a president could get elected with under 30% of the vote. Since parties have to have almost a majority to get elected it forces them to reach out to centrist voters and moderate their positions somewhat.
On the negative sides it allows collusion between the parties on such issues such as gerrymandering which benefits the incumbents from all parties while weakening democracy.
In order to be succesfull a third party would need to find an issue which the other two parties agree on or are ignoring that can stir passions in voters. The GOP did this with slavery and Perot did this with the national debt.
Another way to go would be to find a local issue that has resonance and build a local power base from which a party could then expand. The know nothings and the grange would be examples of this type of party.
Probably less democratic because it limits the amount of voices that can effectively be heard.
The more parties there are, the more likely that individual voters will find one that will best represent their interests. That way, they are more likely to be able to vote for someone they believe in rather than the lesser of two evils.
Depends upon the nature of the 3rd party. A strong extreme-right wing party could push the US agenda to the right, but then again it could split the right wing vote, allowing the left to take control. i don’t think it is easy to say whether a strong 3rd party would be good or bad, beyond the positive benefits of the electorate being more accurately represented.
Probably the best way for a strong 3rd party to emerge in the US is if preferential voting were introduced. This would allow parties to gradually build up support, and would allow voters to feel confident in giving their vote to a 3rd party without feeling that they were throwing it away. How many more Democrats would have voted for Nader if they knew that should Nader not get enough votes to win the state or whatever, their vote for Nader could fall back to Gore?
Australia has pretty much the same two party system as the U.S. so we can’t criticise your system. We do have preferential voting, but despite what I said for point 4 that hasn’t disrupted the two party system too much. However, while the minor parties haven’t ever been considered as even having a chance at forming a government, it is now generally accepted that no major party will ever control the Senate. Major parties have to negotiate with the minor parties to get legislation through, and this tends to curb the excesses of whichever party is in government.
No, it’s not. People who argue that a two-party system is less “democratic” are confusing terms: what they mean to say is that a two-party system is less representative. In a two-party system, it is less likely that the major candidates’ positions will exactly match the opinions of a particular voter.
But having the increased likelihood of having a candidate who holds the same views as yourself does not make a system more democratic.
What determines whether a system is more or less democratic is the rules of participation. Voting age, limits on the right to vote, the extent of suffrage, etc., are the key factors, not the number of candidates.
First, a multiparty system is less effective, as demonstrated by several multiparty countries that limit representation in the legislature to parties who receive more than a certain percentage of the vote.
It is also less effective because it is less stable. Any observer of the Italian government over the years can attest to that. Italy, with a pretty pure PR system (at least until some recent changes), has had 56 governments between 1945 and 1998. That’s more than one government a year. It’s hard to provide efficient government if the bosses keep changing - many historians argue that the inability of the French Third Republic to provide stable governments (IIRC, not a single French government served a full term in power between WWI and WWII) greatly contributed to the French defeat in WWII - there was little long-term planning possible.
This is a good question to consider given the recent recall election in California. Everyone (well, all Deomcrats at least) keeps saying Davis was elected in a “fair”, open, democratic election and therefore should not be recalled. Really, though, how “fair” are our elections? You can argue all you want about how there are numerous candidates to choose from and everyone has an equal chance once on the ballot, but thats not really true, in my opinion. If you are not a Democrat or Republican, you have little chance (not none, since a few independents have slipped through in the Senate and as a governor recently) of actually winning a major office. In national elections, more than 99% of the time, its a Democrat or Republican. And more often than not its the party or candidate that has more money that wins. This system heavily favors incumbents and the two major party candidates because they always have the most money. How “fair” is this process?
I'm not arguing that the California recall is a good idea. I think it goes to far to the other extreme. You may see a governor that only gets 20% of the vote. However, maybe in a sense it is just what the country needs to show us that we as voters need to look beyond the two major parties for ideas and for good candidates. There over over 100 people all with ideas for how to make the state better and willing to spend time to promote those ideas. Many come in with a slim but in some chance to steal away a victory. Certainly there is more of a chance for an independent or 3rd party candidate to slip through than in almost any other major election in recent memory. Granted, Arnie and the Lt. governor have a bit of an advantage, but its not all that large over the rest of the group as a whole. That is nothing if not Democratic in the truest sense of the word. I certainly wouldn't want every election to be like the one in California, but if its helps convince people that its not always a Democrat or a Republican that has the best ideas, I think its a great step forward in many respects.
America is democratic. Lets define the term first. Democracy is government by the people at large, either directly or through representatives. Institutions that give more power to the people are democratic amd those that limit the responsivness of government to the people are undemocratic. Democracy isn’t limited to elections, however. A system where literally everyone: man, woman, child, felon, escaped mental patient, illegal alien, whatever; can vote on election day but thereafter have no input at all in the government would be less democratic than America despite the universal suffrage. ( And the number of candidates is important. If there is only one then there is no choice and adding just a 2nd isn’t much better. Restricting choice in candidates is undemocratic which includes term limits, age limits, and so on. Participation by the general public is the key but not just by ballot. The rights of free speech, free press, petition, and assembly are democratic rights in that they allow people a voice. We have those rights in America and the public debate does shape public policy to some extent. So America is a democracy ( and also a republic. Looks like it is time for another thread on that argument. )
But there are undemocratic features of our government. The Senate, despite being popularly elected, is undemocratic in that representation is unproportional to the population of each state. Also the very existence of a second legislative house makes the government less responsive to the people, that’s the point of having an upper chamber. The House of Representatives, despite being popularly elected, is undemocratic in that its membership is manipulated by gerrymandering. The presidency is undemocratic in that it is not popularly elected. The federal judiciary is undemocratic in that it is unelected and is allowed to overrule the democratic branches of government. So we have democracy but our system is undemocratic in some ways.
You are starting with the wrong questions. What we need to know is “Why are other nations multiparty while the USA is not?” The multiparty governments turn out to be parliamentary democracies while we have a presidential democracy. The form of a government dictates how best to organize to influence/control it. Here, and I guess in Australia, it makes more sense to ally with a large powerbase and try to convert that caucus rather than striking out with just the true believers. This is caused by plurality voting. With our politicians being elected almost always by single member districts it does no good to win 5% or 15% of the district. You only win if you get more votes than anyone else. Our president is elected by the electoral college, which is controlled by- you guessed it, winner take all districts. Nations that have proportional representation can win seats in the legislature even if they finish 2nd, third, or even lower and so they tend to have more parties. ( Incidently I don’t see how establishing a threshold a party must pass to gain seats, while undemocratic, can be considered evidence of ineffectiveness. They still more effectively represent people than here is the USA. ) This can be seen in Great Britain and Canada which have parliaments but elect them from single member districts. They don’t have the overabundance of parties that proportional parliaments such as Italy run into.
Parliaments are also, in general, more democratic than the USA because of our doctrine of seperation of powers. In Great Britain if the people convince the House of Commons supports a measure, that’s all it takes. Parliament can simply pass a law to overturn any adverse court decision, the Lords can only stall for a year, and the leadership of the Commons also runs the executive. Our checks and balances, OTOH, however fervently they are desired for the sake of stability, are undemocratic and impair the efficiency of government.
I think it would but then I’m a Green.
More terms to define. I am OK with “2 Party System” despite the existence of other parties because they are all third parties. When and if one grows strong enough to become the third party then I would go looking for a new term. In order to become the third party I would think that you would have to hold the balance of power in one or more house in Congress and be thought capable of winning at least some electoral votes. At that point the Dems and Repugs would have a reason to give the minor party the time of day. The only way I can see to get there without moving to proportional representation first is if a regional party were to emerge, ala the American Independents but with some staying power.
I would define a major party as one that controlled one of the political branches ( the House, Senate, and Presidency ). By that standard there have only been just four major political parties in US history. The Federalists controlled all three branches to start but then Jefferson organized the Republicans and took over. The Federalists made a principled stand against the War of 1812 and it was fatal. In the messy election of 1824 the Republicans split into the National Republicans which backed JQ Adams and the Democratic Republicans which followed Andrew Jackson. Jackson was robbed of the White House by the Corrupt Bargain but proceeded to win the next 2 elections handily which shattered the National Republicans. From then the Democratic Republicans became known as the Democratic Party. The opponents of Jackson formed a new party, the Whigs for their opposition to the “royal government” of “King Andrew”. The Whigs took control of Congress and the White House but were rent apart over slavery and the Compromise of 1850. Contrary to what Age Quod Agis has posted the disintigration began before the rise of the current Republican Party ( formed in 1854 ). In 1852 the Democrats faced a Whig who got 44% of the popular vote and a Free Soil candidate who got 5%. Four years later the Democrats faced a Republican ( 33% ) and a Know Nothing ( former Whig president Filmore with 22% ). There have been many attempts then and since to form another major party. All have failed. So under the current system the only proven way to establish yourself as one of the 2 major parties is if there is already a vacancy. Not very encouraging.
As for the effect of multiple major and minor parties on our politics we should again remember that we are not a parliamentary democracy. Our government can’t collapse because of a breakup of a coalition because our president doesn’t have to face a vote of confidence. He ( and maybe someday She ) is elected to a four year term. So I would say that if we did move to a proportional system of election for the House, proportional within each state, that is, and a popular vote with a run off for the presidency ( both of which can be accomplished without constitutional amendment ) then we would have a government that was more democratic and yet still quite effective.
I dunno how they feel but I don’t notice them lining up to switch to our system.
