Walters 1 R.

Slade Walters Professor Gary Steel WRTG 101 17 January 2010 Two Parties Are Not Enough If you were to ask average Americans to describe how the U.S. political system works, the vast majority of responses would include references to the two-party system. In fact, many Americans mistakenly believe that the U.S. Constitution mandates a two-party system and prohibits or somehow restricts official recognition of divergent political parties. Of course, the Constitution includes no such mandate. For reasons too numerous and too complex to fully address briefly, mainstream political thought and action in America has somehow digressed into two entrenched camps: Democrats and Republicans. Unfortunately, both camps often seem to be more interested in fighting over antithetical ideologies than in effectively governing. The de facto two-party political system in America tends to drive rampant partisanship and ultimately hurts the American people by fostering political gridlock. The United States is essentially a democratic republic; the American people elect representatives to speak for them in government. One serious flaw with the American two-party system is that it just is not possible for only two large political parties to adequately represent the totality of political thought in America. Hugh P. Williamson eloquently outlines this concept. On the clear limitations of the two-party system, Williamson says:

Walters 2 In considering the political system of the United States we are, for many reasons and in many ways, soon impressed by the fact that no two-party system of government anywhere can ever be an adequate and effective vehicle for the transmission of public opinion. This is true because such a system does not afford sufficient scope for the expression of opinion. We have in this country a Republican party which professes to espouse a certain social philosophy, and a Democratic party which professes to espouse another, and a different, social philosophy. We proceed upon the obviously fallacious assumption that together these two parties express all of the political principles which any substantial group of citizens would have or would care to express. We make no allowance and no provision for those of our people who do not believe in the principles and the practices of either of our two major parties (406). The lack of political party choices leads to problems for the majority of American citizens whose thoughts and ideas dont fit neatly into either the Democratic or Republican molds. Some ignore the parts of a party platform that they do not endorse to gain the benefits of being a member of a well-established and respected party. Others choose to join a smaller, lesser known party that more fully represents their political leanings, realizing that their chosen party may never hold an actual seat in government. Tragically, many more simply choose not to get involved at all because they cannot bring themselves to associate with either party. People who are not adequately represented often choose not to participate in government. Williamson illustrates the problem:

Walters 3 We see, therefore, that the American two-party system largely disenfranchises an unknown but undoubtedly a very large number of citizens qualified to vote; that in the main this disenfranchised group is made up of our better minds whose political will should be effectively registered as of right, and whose political thought, if registered, would afford a valuable contribution to American political life. This is and will always be the first signal of failure of any two-party system (407). The beauty of the American representative democracy is lost when great ideas get stuck between two fiercely competitive and divisive entities like the Democratic and Republican parties. So much time is spent blaming the other party for all of the woes of the world that little is actually done to bring true progress to the people. In a truly representative government there would be a much larger pool of political parties for citizens to choose from. Having numerous parties would help to ensure more open competition and would limit the ability of only two parties to create a political deadlock. Competition among multiple parties would more adequately serve the will of the people. Like the American economy, American politics would benefit from fair and open competition. Daniel R. Ortiz describes the effects of the lack of competition among political parties: Without full competition, producers will serve themselves at the consumers' expense. And the more power and autonomy we give producers, the more dangerous that exploitation can be. Two-partyism presents exactly this danger. Through many different means - ranging from winner-take-all-elections, to ballot access restrictions on third parties and independent candidates, to campaign

Walters 4 finance rules that hobble third-party candidacies - our system protects the existing two parties. It creates a duopoly in which the Democrats and Republicans compete between themselves with no great fear of competition from others. Occasional threats, like Ross Perot's presidential challenge, may temporarily spoil the controlling dynamic, but their influence is short-lived and unlikely to touch more than a handful of offices. Year-in and year-out, voters in most partisan elections, if they are lucky, face a choice between two competitive candidates the Democrat and the Republican (763). Because the two parties are fiercely protective of their power and sway over nearly every facet of American life, they do not relish the idea of allowing that power and influence to be diluted by numerous smaller parties. The two large parties feverishly work to make it nearly impossible for additional parties to enjoy anything other than marginal success in mainstream American politics by creating laws and policies designed to strengthen the idea of two-party rule. Thus, every single issue facing Americans is reduced to one of two choices that are often not very well differentiated. Ortiz describes the dilemma this lack of political competition creates: Although in a free marketplace there may be good, indeed compelling, reasons for allocating much of the work of politics to political parties, all those reasons turn hollow in a market restricted to two producers. Indeed, those reasons turn against consumers. Knowing that consumers have at most only one other real choice in elections, parties will act less responsively to voters. They will, to be sure, usually run candidates certain not to deeply alienate a majority of voters, but they will

Walters 5 feel little need to produce the same product they would in the face of stiff competition (764). The stalemate that results from the incessant bickering between the two major parties causes America and the American people to suffer unnecessarily. There is no easy fix for the problem, but the problem must be addressed for any real progress to occur. Many smaller independent parties that have existed for years have begun to better organize themselves to challenge the duopoly in American politics. Many new parties are being formed to better represent the American people. Whatever happens, until the de facto two-party political system in America is dissolved, the rampant partisanship of that system will hurt the American people by continuing to foster political gridlock.

Walters 6

Works Cited Williamson, Hugh P. "Evils of the American Two-Party System."American Journal of Economics and Sociology: Vol. 9, No. 4. (July 1950): 405-417. JSTOR. 13 January 2010. Ortiz, Daniel R. "Duopoly versus Autonomy: How the Two-Party System Harms the Major Parties." Columbia Law Review. Vol. 100, No. 3. (April 2000): 753-774. Lexis-Nexis Academic. 13 January 2010.