why do we mainly use a two party system?
827266
America has a Two Party System mostly due to the issues that arose during the process of ratifing the Constitution. The country was split with one group, the Federalist, supporting the Constitution, and the other, the Antifederalist, fearing that the Constitution gave the National government too much power. \n\nAfter the ratification of the Constitution, there were still two conflicting major views of where the power should lie. One side said that the National government should have most of the power, and the otherside said the Local governments. These divisions were more or less the same as the divisions between the Federalists and the Antifederalist.\n\nHowever, two strong personalities began to gather followers. Alexander Hamilton of the Federalist; Thomas Jefferson of the Antifederalist. Thus the political theories of that time were called Hamiltonianism and Jeffersonianism. \n\nThere were other political theories floating around as well, but because of the power that Hamilton and Jefferson held, their groups became dominant. In fact, the two groups become so dominate that it was nearly impossible to get elected if a politician did not have the support of one of the groups. \n\nSince then, the major parties have just held so much power and name recognition that it still remains nearly impossible to gain the money and support to win an election without them.\n\nThat's the major reason we have a Two-Party System. There are a few others. For example, the Electorial College. In order to become President, a candidate must win 270 electorate votes. With only two parties, someone will always recieve the 270 votes. However, if there was a powerful third party that could steal electorial votes from both parties, then it would be possible for no candidate to recieve the 270 votes needed.\n\nAt which point, the House of Representatives picks the President for us.
485473
The reason as I see it is this: they have been able to adapt to the changing times.  Both parties have been very good at taking positions on issues brought up by 3rd parties, thereby gaining the issue and keeping 3rd parties at bay that might threaten them.  \n\nFor example in the late 19th century the Democrats were able to fend off the Populist party by taking a popular position on the silver standard at the time.  The Republicans did essentially the same thing with progressive ideas around the turn of the century with T. Roosevelt. \n\nAn example today would be the Greening of the Democratic party on environmental issues to off set the Green Pary.  For the Republicans, there is a growing faction of liberty Republicans that is competing with the Libertarian party.  \n\nYes, money is a big factor, but I contend that if the 2 major parties refused to take up the issues brought to the forefront by these 3rd parties, that eventually a 3rd party could use that issue to bring down one of them or at least make themselves one of the big boys.  \n\nI think that today Immigration is splitting the Republicans and the War is dividing the Democrats, those issues are going to have to be addressed by the parties or it will open up a golden opportunity for a 3rd party to do some real damage.\n\nMoney can win elections but only if the issues are being addressed by a major player because if their not then someone else will.
1051774
Yes... Problem is, in order to do that it appears that you can't have one party control executive and legislative branch since they tend to work along party lines rather than doing what is best for the country and keeping each other in check.\n\nThis applies to both parties-- which is another issue-- that we have a two party system.
92256
In the United States, most people believe in the "marketplace of ideas". That is, that the more arguments and opinions we talk about the more likely we are to find the right answer.\n\nThe problem with only having one party is that you are less likely to get a diversity of opinions. Consequently, you're less likely to find the best solution to a given problem.\n\nOf course, it's possible to have a marketplace of ideas within one party...but the whole point of a "party" is to organize a bunch of people who beleive the whole thing.
801585
Actually, just about every Western democracy uses a party system... of course, many other countries have more than two parties (for example, Canada has ~4-5 major parties; the UK has ~3 major parties) but the political party system is actually stronger in those countries. My understanding is that in Israel, you don't even vote for a candidate for their parliament, you vote for a party, and a person is chosen based on party votes.\n\nPolitical parties are important because they provide a method of political organization.  They provide services to candidates, politicians, and voters about issues-- for example, the party helps to collect information about particular issues to inform politicians on decisions.  They provide a collective consciousness for action (imagine if each politician had to sort through EVERY ISSUE in minute detail... there simply isn't time) and they provide family, a sense of place, camraderie, a "team spirit" if you will.  Finally they provide "shortcuts" for voters, too.  Of course, in this country every candidate is different, in general, a voter understands most of the basic premises that that candidate stands for if he is a democrat, republican, green, libertarian, etc.\n\nSome argue that it is the decline of poltical parties inthis country that has led to the decline of American interest in politics and voting.\n\nTo your second question, sure, a person should evaluate each candidate based on personal views, but sometimes that's just not always possible -- sometimes there are just too many races to be completely informed about (especially smaller races such as state legislature). Further, there's something to be said for collective action for the reasons I articulated above, and a person who will help move forward a group agenda can be just as helpful as the particular views of a particular politician. (People vote for representatives for a lot of reasons, including their personality, their experience, the fact that they helped them with a difficult governmental agency problem, etc...)
1162358
First off, the framers of the constitution did not want a two party system per se, what they wanted was a government set up to do war with itself. The framers wanted a government with gridlock, checks and balances and division of powers to prevent the situation we find ourselves in today, where a single ideology has siezed control of the government. \nUnfortunatly for our nation most americans today are to disinterested in the political process to think to not vote for the R's or the D's. There are independant candidates but without party support its virtually impossible to make it in a political race, unless you have milions of dollars to spend. \nWe as a people need to realize that the decision is not between left and right, but freedom or tyranny.
174628
I agree, when I lived in New Zealand I loved their form of gevernment. People would be represented by percentage in parliment. If 10% voted green party, 10% of parliment would be green etc.\n\nI think a system like this would be able to represent the more pluralistic society we live in, as opposed to being either "democrat" or "republican". I mean because honestly, is it democracy to have only two choices?
341492
Typically in a 3 or more party system the lesser favored candidate wins because the better candidates split the majority votes. Better the Dems. and Reps. offer up someone more to your liking.
948221
At least part of it is apathy and laziness. Too many people don't really care, and feel that they can't make any difference, so why bother.\n\nBut at least part of it is because of the two-party system we've been locked into. Between congressional gerrymandering and the electoral college as implemented, all third-party candidates are largely shut out at the federal level, and don't get much support at local levels. So, many who would support a third-party candidate don't bother wasting their time, because their votes are literally not even counted.
1009631
The one with 20 parties is more democratic.  It is giving voice to the many points of view espoused by its people.  Governing such a country might be problematic as you would have to form consensus between many parties in order to have a majority for conducting business.
1156269
I would say that the two-party system is certainly on the way to becoming obsolete. You have two extremes on everything. What is needed is a centrist/moderate party that could have a stand that is more moderate.
243244
It seems to me that the two party system is antiquated and we need a total overhaul of the political system... along with the abolition of the electorial college.\n\nLiberals in the democratic party are afraid of being truly liberal. \n\nIn order to have a healthy democracy we need more choices and coalitions and fewer lobbyists from big business. The richest most powerful country in the world doesn't take care of its most vulnerable citizens...children and elders. \n\nI'm a socialist, can you tell?
619497
Well there are 3rd parties around, Libertarian, Green, even Constitutional.  The problem is they do not have high enough profiles to breakthrough.  Libertarians and Greens have the most press but not enough to overtake D/R's.  Mainly because of failed strategies of trying to take the Presidency without making a dent in local politics first.  \n\nAs I see it 3rd parties can have two successful strategies.  First, start locally and slowly build a base as you climb the political ladder.  That's a main reason the 2 majors are so successful they have plenty of candidates to choose from the lower political ladder.  Think baseball with their farm system.  This is slow but steady wins the race mentality.\n\nSecond, push for election change in the way we elect House members.  As it stands right now, House districts are based on population.  This dilutes 3rd party votes between several different districts and almost insures that the 2 major party candidates will never face a real opponent save one from the other major.  I think that deciding represention in the House by proportion would be a better.  My home state of Florida for exampele has 25 House seats if we went to a proportional system then 3rd parties could realistically gain 1-3 seats.  Not alot but if you consider large/bigger medium represented states then you could be talking what 20-25, and the difference today in the House is what 15?  3rd parties could realistically become the powerbrokers in the house and make the 2 majors at least pay attention to them.  It would also give them a jumping off point for bigger offices.
559109
My view of third parties is this:\n\nThere are usually TWO views on everything.  Right or Wrong.  Up or Down.  Yes or No.  Third party candidates really have to get there positions completely equal to run as a strong thrid-party.\n\nIt;s like the operating system Linux.  It's all based on the same core software, but they're all different, with differing standards.  If they were to unite, on every the most basic issues, they would be just as strong as Microsoft & Apple.\n\nThe same goes with third-party politics.  There are WAY to many parties, when they're not that many different points of view.  If they were tounite on some basic ideas, they would be taken [really] seriously.  But until then, there are too many choices.\n\nAnd we Americans get scared when there are too many choices.
673880
We should have as many parties as we want. It would mean that americans finally have a choice, and experience a real democracy. Right now, we have two side of the same coin.
997505
I personally am opposed to the idea of voting for the other guy just because I don't like his opponent.  If you don't truly believe in the candidate you are voting for, find another one.  As much as people don't think much of third party candidates, I feel that if people voted for a candidate that they believed in instead of "you have to vote for one the two main parties or you through your vote away" we would have a much different country today.
707847
In the 2 party system you would have half the people unhappy no matter what a politician did.  you would never have any politician in office for more than 30 days...\n\nActually, now that I think about it, I like the idea.