The phrase ‘two – party system’ is misleading in some respects, for the American pattern of activity could also be viewed as an ‘agglomeration of many parties centred around the governments of the 50 states and their subdivisions, whilst from another point of view it is a four – party system based upon Congress and the presidency. Writers such as Vile have stressed that although the system nominally operates via two parties, this obscures the fact that for most purposes ‘America operates under a multiparty system which coalesces into two great coalitions for strictly limited purposes’.
These considerations make it difficult to label the American system straightforwardly as a two-party one, but for most observers it remains meaningful to talk in such a language. When people think of the parties in America, they think of the battle between the Democrats and the Republicans, especially on this side of the Atlantic, they think primarily of the contest for the presidency.
In the UK, since 1945 the percentage of votes won by the Labour and Conservative Parties together has not fallen below 70%. There are two conclusions from this evidence; one is that the two parties do indeed dominate voting in British general elections. The second regards the fact that support for the two main parties has slowly declined, despite the occasional blip. Thus, generalisations about this aspect of the two-party system must be treated with great suspicion. Coupled with this is the fact that the percentage of seats won by Labour and Conservative parties together has not fallen below 85% since 1945. This discrepancy between the percentage of votes cast and seats won, which becomes marked after 1970, is due to the unusual electoral system (FPTP) that the UK operates. Whatever this causes there is no doubt that seats in the House of Commons are almost totally monopolised by the Conservative and Labour Parties.
Several factors may be advanced to explain the American system, some institutional, some cultural or historical. The two-party divide had come about at the time of formation of the Republic, then it has always likely that it would be retained for ‘there is a tendency in human institutions for a persistence of the initial form.’ Discussion of the form of the Constitution resolved itself into a battle between two opposing viewpoints, and even thereafter in American history, such as slavery and the civil war, perpetuated this pattern. Once the two-party system was established, the parties did all that they could to keep it that way and prevent a fractious section of the party from breaking away. In other words, a two-party system tends to be self-perpetuating. Some would stress that the natural tendency for opinion on issues to divide into a ‘for’ and ‘against’ position which often follows the basic distinction between people who generally favour retaining the status quo (the conservatives) and those who wish to see innovation and a quicker pace of change (the progressives).
I would argue though that the single most important factor in the establishment and perpetuation of a two-party system is the mechanics of the respective electoral systems. The electoral system in both countries, the single member plurality or ‘winner takes all’ system, discourages the formation of third or minor parties. Candidates need more votes than their rivals, not an overall majority of the votes cast in any state or constituency. A candidate carries any state or constituency on election night in which he or she has the highest number of votes. Small parties may total a considerable number of votes nationally or within the region, but it is winning in individual constituencies which counts. Under a proportional electoral system, they would have more chance of gaining some representation in the legislature. The FPTP system also means that there is the issue of the wasted vote to consider. Even if they get off the ground it is difficult for third parties to sustain any momentum over a period, for to stay in business a party needs to be able to raise funds, maintain an organisation and reward its supporters with the prospect of office or influence. As voters know that small parties will have difficulty gaining power, they tend to regard a vote for them as a ‘wasted vote’. If they cannot eventually win a majority of the votes, they are devoid of real influence; they will not get that majority if people think that they have little of achieving it and accordingly fail to vote for them.
In Britain in recent years we have seen the introduction of devolution of power from Westminster to devolved assemblies in Scotland and Wales. In these assemblies more proportional systems of election are used than is used for elections to Westminster. This has caused third parties to gain more power and it therefore could be said that in the UK as a whole there now exists a three party system. In England however the high percentage of support for the Liberal Democrats is never allowed to manifest itself in terms of seats won in the House of Commons due to the support being spread out as opposed to being concentrated in a number of constituencies, whereas Labour and the Conservatives can rely on their respective strongholds in the North and South of England.
In conclusion, it is hard to say that a two-party system is not perpetuated and exaggerated by the single member plurality systems in both the US and the UK. Furthermore the traditions and mechanics of both countries would support the historical evidence that a two-party system will continue in the UK and the US despite recent increases in the support for the UK’s third party, the Liberal Democrats.
