The two-party system has stood as a staple of the American political system since the 18th century. Despite George Washington’s warning against such a system, the electorate divided into two groups— Federalists and Democratic Republicans. Since then, the country has faithfully followed this trajectory.
While the political parties have evolved and changed over time, these two sets of ideologies are more or less the pillars that have come to define American democracy. Despite changing trends, labels, and barometers of extremism, U.S. presidential elections come down to two options.
Some may argue that this system has been a success. With relatively high voter turnout, political stability, and primarily peaceful transfers of power, the American political system is far from a failure. However, as the upcoming election grows near, contention between the two parties leads to gridlock in decision-making, and flaws within the two-party system become more apparent.
Joe Biden and Donald Trump both earned notably low approval rates for their presidential terms, sitting at an average of 47% and 39%, respectively. However, due to the two-party system, wealth and incumbent advantages take precedence— regardless of other candidates or parties desired by voters.
In a political landscape that is dominated by two polarized parties, little room remains for third party candidates and prospective wins are exaggerated due the “winner take all” concept. These exaggerated wins yield for a skewed take on the true beliefs of the electorate. Despite having possible constituents to support them, minority parties are essentially excluded from political discussions and policy-making.
Legislation has grown into a partisan battleground that has conflicting interests under single party names — effectively shielding necessary political discourse from the electorates. A contrasting multi-party system allows for outlets of expression across the entire political spectrum.
NASH English teacher Mr. Truesdell calls for a system with multiple parties to encourage widespread representation.
“Without multiple voices in a conversation, one group can dominate far too much,” Truesdell said. “That being said, if there are only three parties, sometimes that dilutes the conversation. What we need is many parties representing different facets. We have such a polarized electorate that is focused far more on ideologies than it is on the issues themselves.”
This sentiment extends beyond adults. In fact, many young voters, such as NASH senior Logan Wright, share similar feelings of frustration.
“I believe that the two-party system no longer reflects the desires of the nation as a whole,” Wright said. “Party candidates largely stick to what is known and hesitate to deviate from party lines. This partisanship disenfranchises centrist voters like myself, and as I have noticed, divides people along arbitrary lines instead of spurring productive discussions.”
While equal competition among many parties may seem like an unattainable future, the only way to work toward such a future is to politically and economically invest in a system that breeds party innovation and elevates the platforms of third parties. A system that encourages competitive alternative parties further ensures widespread political representation and enhances the opportunity for more diverse beliefs in office.
