The Pros And Cons Of The Two Party System

Even though some may find it limiting, the two-party system does allow for a wide spectrum of people to participate in the presidential election process. This is because most people do fit under the umbrella of either the Democrat or Republican Party. Even if they don’t fit under these two parties and belong to a third party, they’re still able to vote in open primaries and then the general election. People who even do not belong to any party are not left out and can still vote for whichever candidate they think is best and do not have to be affiliated with that candidate’s party to do so. The two-party system allows many people to participate in the presidential election process because even though it’s a two-party system, it still has other smaller third parties that people can belong to.

A two party system is strong and influential although it allows lesser parties to exist and have an influence. As a result a majority party will form the government and the minority party will form the opposition, and coalitions of the lesser parties are possible. These systems can also be multi-party systems. The Two-party sytem has advantages and disadvantages they consist of: Advantages,: It can lead to political stability which leads, in turn, to economic growth, two-party systems have been seen as preferable to multi-party systems because they are simple to govern, while multi-party systems can sometimes lead to parliament. The disadvantages: Two-party systems have been criticized extreme views, and putting a second opinion on debate within a nation, two-party systems for fail to provide enough options since only two choices are permitted on the ballot, 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." 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. I think having a two-party system is ideal because neither major party is strong enough to win without bringing up specific topics that they believe in or their ideology of their party. The way the Republicans and Democrats present

George Washington advised against a two-party political system. He thought it would separate the nation. He was the President without a party. ‘This was a stunning new phenomenon that shocked most of the older leaders of the Revolutionary Era. Even Madison, who was one of the earliest to see the value of political parties, believed that they would only serve as temporary coalitions for specific controversial elections.” (“Two Parties Emerge”, 2015) It was good due to importance sovereignty, democracy, and to the American Revolution.

When weighing the advantages and disadvantages of political parties there is no true way to tell whether the benefits exceed the disadvantages or if it is the other way around. Every citizen will have his/her own opinion on the subject. However, with every beneficial aspect of political parties there is almost always a contradicting disadvantage as well. While some people may argue that political parties are an asset to our country, others may argue that they are harmful

Generally speaking, anyone who lives in the United States of America knows that there are two main political parties—the Republicans and the Democrats. Having two main parties has its advantages and, of course, its disadvantages. For example, in By the People James E. Monroe and Rogan Kersh (301) point out having this type of system creates “predictability and stability.” However, they also declare (301) it can “lead to a gridlock.” This is not a new concept either as there has been a divide since the beginning of both parties. The two parties more often than not disagree on various issues, while rarely agreeing on what is best for the country.

The Founding Fathers believed that political parties were dangerous and a threat to a popular republican government. Despite the foreboding of the Founders, parties formed and are still around to this day. I agree with the statement that “parties make the process work, clarify issues, and present clear alternatives. And when the parties are in a weakened state, it is bad for the country.” I think in their most basic form, parties do play a vital role in our government, but I understand why the Founders were hesitant about them.

In 1789, the U.S. did not have a two-party system. The two-party system is rooted in the beginnings of the nation itself. The Framers of the Constitution were opposed to political parties. The ratification of the Constitution saw the birth of America's first two parties: the federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, and the Anti-Federalists, who followed Thomas Jefferson. The nation had only had George Washington, who was President without a party at that time. During George Washington’s two terms, a conflict developed between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, who were both Federalists men. Jefferson challenged Adams under the umbrella of the Democratic - Republican Party. In addition, the Democratic - Republican Party was the first real party that contained the formal beginnings of the present day two-party system. The word Democratic infers to “will of the people”, the word Republican infers to “rule of law” which is defense from possible oppression of the majority. In short, the American party system began as a two-party system. In this essay I will be discussing the why America needs a two-party system, why a multi-system may work for the nation and the conflicts, and how does this political system contributes to the nation and why a two-system is worth the struggle.

In 1792, the world’s oldest political party, the Democratic Party, was founded. During the presidency of President Andrew Jackson in 1830, the party adopted its name as the Democratic Party as it is known now. Prior to the renaming of the party, it was known as the Democratic-Republican Party founded by James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson in opposition of the Federalist Party. The Democratic Party’s purposed served to supported states’ rights and the strict interpretation of the Constitution (Mayne, 1). Correspondingly, providing financial support to family based agriculture was one of their main priorities (Mayne, 1). The Federalist Party, their opposition, consisted of wealthy elites that strived, and fought for one strong all ruling national government, rather than state governments. As the United States had just recently become independent, the Democratic-Republican Party was determined to prevent the United States from becoming a monarchy. Over the next century, the Democratic-Republican party began to split due to the lack of agreement on major ideas which led to the current two-party system. However, some ideologies remain the same such as moral stance, and socioeconomic status. Other ideologies like economic view and stance on government power have caused this split between the Democratic and Republican parties (Mayne, 22). It is imperative to remember that even though these two parties are completely different, they originated from the same party with one main goal; “To create a government that is run for and by its people” (Mayne, 23). I have still not developed a political identity, but over the past three years of my residence in the United States, I am more in favor of the Democratic Party and what they stand for.

The two-party system needs to be changed or completely abolished, because it offers limited ideas and opinions to run the country. The two parties have their own perspectives on issues such as gun control or abortion; Craig Goodman of the University of Houston claims he“doesn’t think it’s very democratic. Why should you exclude someone because they are a small number, and they don’t get to express themselves?” (Cargo 1). The two-party does not allow the middle ground or smaller parties to really have a say (Mathias 4).  Most voters only know the leading independent and the two party nominees. Kate Cargo describes “the two-party system leaves voter with low-quality ideas and frankly, low-quality candidates” (Cargo 1) while the third party candidate could have a great compromise on a hot issue, it will never see the light of day. While the two-party system does allow people to have easy access to the opinions of the parties on these issues, it does not make up for the limited options we have. As a country we need to have as many options as possible even if they are extreme. Accessibility is important, but it should never limit our options.

In his essay “Polarized Parties Are Good for America”, Matthew Yglesias asserts that the two-party system is ideal for America. He begins by stating that polarization is bad for elites, as it leaves little to no room for “self-styled players”. He then suggests that the two-party system is beneficial for voters, insisting that having clearly labeled candidates creates a “menu” that allows the masses to know what they’re voting for from the start. He concludes by stating that the problem isn’t in partisanship, but with the small number of parties. In this essay I will prove that the two-party system is bad for America.

The division of ideas led to the creation of the two-party system. The main issue between the two parties was how they believed the Constitution should be read and interpreted. When George Washington was president he assigned to people to his cabinet. Hamilton and Jefferson both which seen differences in the constitution. One believe that so of the constitution was good the other believe that some of it was inappropriate. This cause a rift and a split into a two-party system (AP U.S. History Notes).

Political parties are formed when voters have different ideology regarding government, economics, and politics. The Second Party System emerged after the Democratic and Whig parties came to power in America. The development of this party system was prompted by the clashing philosophies about individual rights, government control, and land acquisition. Despite both parties being equally prevalent in America, the Democratic Party flourished and was drastically much more successful than the Whig Party at impacting the nation.

Democracy in the United States is based on the indirect representation of the people by elected officials who are usually chosen by direct vote. Almost from the beginning of the United States' history, however, two parties have shared the great majority of the elected positions from the local level to the presidency. However, up until the mid-1850's when the Republican party was formed, other parties such as the Whigs, Federalists, and Anti-Federalists did not last very long. The Democratic Party has existed for much longer, tracing its roots from Thomas Jefferson's Democratic Republican Party beginning around 1792 (Encarta). The two largest parties have changed, third parties have

The parties formed after the Constitution was adopted as the need to systematically search for and encourage popular support became apparent. The structure of a party allows a group of like-minded politicians to mold popular support in the favor of the candidate of their choice where alone they could only accomplish the creation of multiple less organized and therefore less politically potent factions. The nature of the political system already in place gave no value to coming in second or third in elections at any level of government, leading to the natural growth of two strong parties who battle for supremacy at every election (July 22). The winner takes all, and the opposition spends their time getting ready to try again as they wait for their next chance. Once the two parties, Democrat and Republican, were firmly settled in to the system they affected legislation to give themselves automatic ballot access and state funding, making election that much harder for other parties and thereby ensuring that it remained a two party system (July 22).

Since the administration of George Washington two political parties have dominated the United States political system, but they have not always been the same two parties. The first two parties were the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. Federalists were those who supported a strong federal government and the Anti-Federalists were those who did not. The leaders of the Federalists were Alexander Hamilton and John Adams. Both were from the Northeast where the Federalist line of thinking was strongest. Thomas Jefferson became the leader of the Anti-Federalists. These two groups really did not considered themselves parties. The founders feared parties because they thought of them as factions.