Is the US a two party system?

Intro (outline what a two party system is, general points)

• a two party system is one where two major parties alternately and consistenyl dominate the political landscape

  • could be applicable to the US system:

    • since 1853, the president has always been Republican or Dem

• it could be suitable to call the US a two party system because their are many things in place to prevent the success of third parties, such as the Electoral College.

• furthermore, the two parties dominate the legislature consistently

POINT 1 : YES- two parties consistently dominate the legislature

• POINT : The distribution of seats within the legislature is evidence of a two party system , because almost always, two parties dominate it

Point 1 : Examples of two parties dominating the legislature

• Examples of two parties dominating the legislature:

  • Following the 2016 elections, only 2 members of the Senate were independent

    • Sanders and Angus King

  • In 2024 only 2

    • Sanders and Angus King (again)

  • Even Sanders and King tend to caucus with a specific party (Democrats)

    • 2012 -> the two independents (Sanders and Lieberman) sided with the Democrats

  • Contrasts two the share of Democrats and Republicans:

    • 2024-> 53 reps and 45 dems

    • 2023- 2024-> 48 dems and 49 reps 

      • 3 independents (Sanders, King and Kyrsten Sinema)

        • They all caucused with Democrats

Evaluation of Point 1

• EVAL:

  • the Senators are consistently almost always one of two parties

    • Congress is representative of the two party system of US political landscape

  • Even when there are independents within the Senate, they always side with a party

  • Reinforces partisanship and party polarisation since there are two definitive parties that people have to go with.

  • party lines are definitive, making the US a two party system

POINT 2 : YES- both parties cover a wide ideological spectrum

POINT : two major parties encompass wide ideological spectrum, with factions and divisions within them, limiting the room for other 3rd parties with alternative views

POINT 2 : Examples of intra -party factions

• EXAMPLES:

  • Different intra-party factions have formed, meaning all ideological divisions are covered within one party:

  • different ideological caucuses within Congress means ideological views are represented

  • Within Democrats:

    • Congressional Progressive Caucus- very liberal

      • concerned with social and racial justice

      • LGBTQ+ rights

      • e.g. Bernie Sanders

      • New Democrat Coalition Caucus

        • e.g. Joe Biden

        • fair and human immigration reform

        • measures to reduce climate change

      • Blue Dog Coalition 

        • fiscally conservative

        • less socially liberal

        • voted against Obamacare

  • within Republicans

    • Tuesday Group →

      • moderates, less socially conservative

      • more sympathetic towards immigration

    • Freedom Caucus→ fiscal conservatives

      • advocate for small government

      • tax cuts

    • Republican Study Committee → social conservatives

      • anti LGBTQ

      • defenders of 2nd amendment

      • favour death penalty

POINT 2 :EVALUATION

• Evaluation:

  • these factions cover the moderates/liberals, conservatives and centrists of each party

  • means that there is no need for supporting other parties that may fail to win when people can simply resonate with factions/ caucuses of one party

  • HOWEVER this could also mean that realistically and structurally, the US is a multi party system however they are within the umbrellas of two parties

POINT 3 : YES - the EC system of voting consistently permits only two parties success

• POINT: The Electoral College system (FPTP) means for third parties to win any EC votes, they have to get a concentrated vote, which proves difficult, suppressing any but the two parties to rise to power

POINT 3 : EXAMPLES

• Examples:

  • US popular vote usually displays a two party system:

    • 1996 → 91%

    • 2004,2012 → 99%

    • 2016→ 94%

  • George Wallace was able to win 45 EC votes with only 13% of the national vote

    • Only because his vote was concentrated in the Solid South (Alabama, etc)

      • was concerned with realigning disillusioned white Dems who opposed desegregation

    • Yet Perot was not as successful even though he got a larger share of the popular vote (19%)

      • because his vote was more widespread

        • Remains difficult for third parties to get both a good share of the vote and electoral college votes

POINT 3 : EVALUATION

• Evaluation:

  • these examples show that it remains difficult for third parties to get both a good share of the vote and electoral college votes

    • therefore, the Electoral system of winner takes all means it remains difficult for any other than the two major parties to gain EC votes and be successful 

  • third parties are arguably just there to decrease the amount needed by the two major parties to be successful

• However since this is a constituional feature it cannot be amendmend

POINT 4 : NO- The action of cooptation means two parties don't just focus on their supporters needs but take into account other policies from smaller parties that would be beneficial

• POINT: Co-optation is when party rivals adopt popular and beneficial policies of another party to gain votes

• The action of cooptation means two parties don't just focus on their supporters needs but take into account other policies from smaller parties that would be beneficial

POINT 4: Examples of cooptation

• Examples:

  • Perot won 19% of the vote so Bill Clinton and congressional republicans adopted policies to deal with Perot’s flagship policy which was balancing federal policy budget deficit

    • one of Clinton’s economic policies was welfare reform and a budget surplus

  • the fact that Clinton co-opted Perot’s call for balanced fed budget means the two parties are considering other parties’ popular parties- not distinctly a two party system

    • third parties still have ideological influence in the run up to presidential elections

  • Tea party and Republican Party in 2009

    • Tea party advocated for fiscal Conservatism, and the Republican Party co-opted the movement by incorporating its demands into the party’s platform (to gain more votes in 2010 midterms)

    • many Tea Party candidates ran as Republicans 

Point 4 cooptation evaluation

• Eval: 

  • the fact that they co-opted Perot’s call for balanced fed budget means the two parties are considering other parties’ popular parties- not distinctly a two party system

    • third parties still have ideological influence in the run up to presidential elections

  • HOWEVER this ultimately just leads to a two party structure since they can use popular policies to gain support but they are still part of one of two parties

    • they may forget about these policies after the election is over

    • So America is still structurally a two party system

  • cooptation is also sometimes done to minimise potential opposition or dissent, not actually done in the interests of diversifying the political party landscape

Conclusion (final judgements, polarisation)

• The 50 party system may be a good theory to explain how the parties can be different on a state level, but ultimately these factions , state parties etc are still part of the same party

  • Therefore arguably,  structurally the US is a two party system

• However the prominence of factions and divisions within each party, MAGA arising  since Trump came into power, means there are many different ideologies within a party

• Arguably, increasing polarisation on certain issues further defines US as a two party system