We base [our decision] on the simple proposition that readers don’t want to waste their time on someone who won’t have a role in the campaign. We’re not going to run a one-page spread on a fringe candidate. We don’t have a multiparty system. Until we do, nobody’s going to cover these candidates. (Rosenstone et al., p. 35)
In agreement with Perry, Marshall Field, publisher of the Chicago Sun Times, said, “The country is run by a two-party system and those candidates ‘chosen by the people’ are the ones who deserve serious consideration” (Rosenstone et al., p. 36). In Field’s statement, the phrase “chosen by the people” refers to the presidential primary system for nominating major party candidates. In this direct primary system, candidates need a large following to qualify for major party nominations (Bibby & Maisel, p. 59), unlike minor party candidates whose names appear on the presidential ballot without much voter support.
The single-member district system, in which parties compete for one position and the candidate who has the most votes is elected (Rosenstone et al., p. 36), also hinders the chances of a third party victory. The United States has this system instead of the proportional representation system, a structure found in countries such as the United Kingdom and Canada that rewards several parties with legislative seats according to the percentage of the vote each has obtained (Bibby & Maisel, p. 56). While proportional representation systems provide “incentives for the creation and perpetuation of multiple and distinct parties,” the American arrangement brings with it “incentives toward the creation of two broadly based parties that are capable of winning district-level pluralities and majorities in the legislative chamber” (Bibby & Maisel, p. 56). Kay Lawson, a professor at San Francisco State University and supporter of the multiparty system, believes that the United States needs to change the electoral system to a proportional representation system to encourage the growth of minor parties (Lawson, 1997, p. 66). This transformation would not be an easy one, particularly because the single member district system is deeply rooted in American tradition, as the system dates back more than a century. Bibby comments on altering traditional systems in general: “A truly viable multiparty system would require a change in some basic institutional arrangements to which, for the most part, Americans seem firmly committed” (1997, p. 21). Therefore, since the electoral system is unlikely to change, minor parties will always be “condemned to almost perpetual defeat (Bibby & Maisel, p. 56)” because the United States is inclined to form two major parties under the single-member district system.
The Electoral College system for electing presidents is another institutional barrier to multiparty politics. According to the Constitution, a candidate needs an absolute majority of the electoral votes (270 out of 538 total electoral votes) to become president (Bibby & Maisel, p. 57). The event of a third party winning a majority of electoral votes is extremely unlikely, but the fact that “all but two states (Maine and Nebraska) allocate their electoral votes to candidates on a winner-take-all basis” (Bibby & Maisel, p. 57), only increases the improbability of a third party victory. Ross Perot’s 1992 campaign exhibited the minute chance a third party candidate has in winning any state’s electoral votes, let alone winning a majority, as Perot did not receive any electoral votes even though he won 18.9 percent of the popular vote (Bibby & Maisel, p. 58).
The stability of our government can also be accredited to the sense of national unity stimulated by the two-party system, as a majority of voters must unite in support of one candidate to elect him. This idea is described in John Fischer’s comparison of American and European parties:
“The purpose of European parties is, of course, to divide men of different ideologies into coherent and disciplined organizations. The historic role of the American party, on the other hand is not to divide but unite” (Bibby, p. 76).
Furthermore, the two-party system is praised for its accommodation to diverse American citizens, as Bibby affirms “both the Democratic and Republican parties have broad-based electoral support and draw significant levels of support from virtually every major socioeconomic group in society” (p. 76). Nevertheless, Lawson and other multiparty advocates often argue that voters have difficulty in finding a party to support because the voters are limited to the two major parties (Lawson, p. 62). A 1996 Gallup poll clearly demonstrates that this is not the case, as 89 percent of respondents in the study were “favorable toward at least one major party,” and the other 11 percent were “unfavorable, neutral, or unsure about both” (Bibby, p. 78). Bibby also argues that a multiparty system would break such unity because it would “further fragment society and heighten divisiveness” (p. 77).
The two-party system’s promotion of unity leads to the legitimacy of elected officials, ultimately adding to the stability of the American government. As stated previously, a winning candidate must have a majority or sizable plurality of the vote under the single-member district system; Bibby believes that this requirement of obtaining the majority to win the election “lends an aura of legitimacy to elected officials that in the case of the presidents and governors strengthens their position to lead the nation or their states” (p. 74). Nelson W. Polsby and Aaron Wildavsky echo this opinion: “…this increases the chance that winners will have the backing of a sizable number of voters and the legitimacy to lead Congress and the nation” (Bibby, p. 74).
Conclusions
Noticing these benefits stemming from the existence of the two-party system, Bibby states, “Perhaps it is because the United States has operated a political system within the context of stability, consensus, and incremental policy change for so long that its advantages tend to be overlooked and taken for granted” (p. 77). Such longevity exhibited by the two-party system is unheard of in foreign governments. The endurance of this system can be attributed to the sense of unity and legitimacy that it provides United States citizens, along with its “high compatibility with American society, culture, and governmental structures” (Bibby, p. 74). The United States government should continue to encourage the two-party system to ultimately maintain the advantageous relationship it has had with the American public.
References
Bibby, J.F. (1997). In defense of the two party system. In J.C. Green & P.S. Herrnson (Eds.), Multiparty politics in America (pp. 73-84). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Bibby, J.F., & Maisel, L.S. (1998). Two parties – or more?: The American party system. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
Lawson, K. (1997). The case for the multiparty system. In J.C. Green & P.S. Herrnson (Eds.), Multiparty politics in America (pp. 59-71). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Rosenstone, S.J, Behr, R.L., & Lazarus, E.H. Third parties in America. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
