Editing Two-party system (section)

==Causes==
There are several reasons why, in some systems, two major parties dominate the political landscape. There has been speculation that a two-party system arose in the [[United States]] from early political battling between the federalists and anti-federalists in the first few decades after the ratification of the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]], according to several views.<ref name=SchmidtTextbook/><ref name=twsNovGi11>{{cite news
|author= Michiko Kakutani (book reviewer) American Creation (book by Joseph J. Ellis)
|title= The Timing, Luck and Lust Behind the Forming of That More Perfect Union
|newspaper= The New York Times
|quote= the standoff between the Federalists and their opponents, which led to the modern two-party system
|date= November 27, 2007
|url= https://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/27/books/27kaku.html?pagewanted=print
|access-date= 2010-11-07
|archive-date= 2015-06-05
|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20150605074901/http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/27/books/27kaku.html?pagewanted=print
|url-status= live
}}</ref> In addition, there has been more speculation that the winner-takes-all electoral system as well as particular state and federal laws regarding voting procedures helped to cause a two-party system.<ref name=SchmidtTextbook>{{cite news
|last1= Schmidt |first1=Steffen W.
|author-link1= Steffen Schmidt
|last2= Shelley |first2=Mack C.
|last3=Bardes |first3=Barbara A.
|title= American Government and Politics Today 2008–2009
|publisher= Wadsworth Publishing Company
|year= 2008
|isbn= 9780495503224
|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=QJrSm1q-gbQC&q=%22two-party+system%22+United+States+historical+foundations&pg=PA173
|access-date= 2010-11-22
|archive-date= 2020-02-29
|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20200229003310/https://books.google.com/books?id=QJrSm1q-gbQC&pg=PA173&dq=%22two-party+system%22+United+States+historical+foundations#v=onepage&q=%22two-party%20system%22%20United%20States%20historical%20foundations&f=false
|url-status= live
}}</ref>
[[File:Two Party Ballot In New Jersey.jpg|thumb|right|alt=Voting ballot.|In a two-party system, voters have mostly two options; in this sample ballot for an election in [[Summit, New Jersey]], voters can choose between a Republican or Democrat, but there are no third party candidates.]]

[[File:FMSTAN & SPIDER Global meeting in Austrian Foreign Ministries in Vienna (49120446508) (cropped).jpg|thumb|right|Economist [[Jeffrey D. Sachs]]]]
Political scientists such as [[Maurice Duverger]]<ref name=GeorgeEdwards>{{Cite book
| last = Edwards III
| first = George C.
| title = Why the Electoral College is Bad for America
| publisher = Yale University Press
| edition = Second
| year = 2011
| location = New Haven and London
| pages = 176–77
| isbn =978-0-300-16649-1}}</ref> and [[William H. Riker]] claim that there are strong correlations between voting rules and type of party system. [[Jeffrey D. Sachs]] agreed that there was a link between voting arrangements and the effective number of parties. Sachs explained how the [[first-past-the-post]] voting arrangement tended to promote a two-party system:

{{Quote|The main reason for America's majoritarian character is the electoral system for Congress. Members of Congress are elected in single-member districts according to the "first-past-the-post" (FPTP) principle, meaning that the candidate with the plurality of votes is the winner of the congressional seat. The losing party or parties win no representation at all. The first-past-the-post election tends to produce a small number of major parties, perhaps just two, a principle known in political science as [[Duverger's Law]]. Smaller parties are trampled in first-past-the-post elections.|Sachs, ''The Price of Civilization'', 2011<ref name=twsM18xxuy>{{cite book
| last = Sachs
| first = Jeffrey
| title = The Price of Civilization
| publisher = Random House
| year = 2011
| location = New York
| page = 107
| isbn = 978-1-4000-6841-8}}</ref>}}

Consider a system in which voters can vote for any candidate from any one of many parties. Suppose further that if a party gets 15% of votes, then that party will win 15% of the seats in the legislature. This is termed ''proportional representation'' or more accurately as ''party-proportional representation''. Political scientists speculate that proportional representation leads logically to multi-party systems, since it allows new parties to build a niche in the legislature:

{{Quote|Because even a minor party may still obtain at least a few seats in the legislature, smaller parties have a greater incentive to organize under such electoral systems than they do in the United States.|Schmidt, Shelley, Bardes (2008)<ref name=SchmidtTextbook/>}}

In contrast, a voting system that allows only a single winner for each possible legislative seat is sometimes termed a [[single-winner voting system]] and is usually described under the heading of a ''winner-takes-all'' arrangement in the case of a [[plurality voting system]]. Each voter can cast a single vote for any candidate within any given legislative district, but the candidate with the most votes wins the seat, although variants, such as requiring a majority, are sometimes used. What happens is that in a general election, a party that consistently comes in third in every district is unlikely to win any legislative seats even if there is a significant proportion of the electorate favoring its positions. This arrangement strongly favors large and well-organized political parties that are able to appeal to voters in many districts and hence win many seats, and discourages smaller or regional parties. Politically oriented people consider their only realistic way to capture political power is to run under the auspices of the two dominant parties,<ref name=SchmidtTextbook/> and legislators from both dominant parties have an incentive not to reform the system as it eliminates potential choices and multiple competing policy options, meaning that they do not necessarily need to adopt positions favorable to voters, but only need to be seen as marginally less unfavorable than the only other option to gain votes.

In the U.S., forty-eight states have a standard ''winner-takes-all'' electoral system for amassing presidential votes in the [[Electoral College (United States)|Electoral College]] system.<ref name=twsNovGf1>{{cite magazine
|first= Kristina |last=Dell
|title= The Electoral College Explained
|magazine=[[Time (magazine)|Time]]
|quote= Forty-eight states have the standard "winner-takes-all" electoral system: whichever presidential ticket amasses the most popular votes in a state wins all the electors of that state.
|date= Nov 1, 2004
|url= http://www.time.com/time/election2004/article/0,18471,749496,00.html
|access-date= 2010-11-07
|archive-date= 2010-07-10
|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20100710125857/http://www.time.com/time/election2004/article/0,18471,749496,00.html
|url-status= dead
}}</ref> The ''winner-takes-all'' principle applies in presidential elections, since if a presidential candidate gets the most votes in any particular state, ''all'' of the [[electoral votes]] from that state are awarded. In all but two states, [[Maine]] and [[Nebraska]], the presidential candidate winning a plurality of votes wins all of the electoral votes, a practice called the '''unit rule'''.<ref name=SchmidtTextbook/>

Duverger concluded that "plurality election single-ballot procedures are likely to produce two-party systems, whereas proportional representation and runoff designs encourage multipartyism."<ref name=GeorgeEdwards/> He suggested there were two reasons why ''winner-takes-all'' systems leads to a two-party system. First, the weaker parties are pressured to form an alliance, sometimes called a ''fusion'', to try to become big enough to challenge a large dominant party and, in so doing, gain political clout in the legislature. Second, voters learn, over time, not to vote for candidates outside of one of the two large parties since their votes for third party candidates are usually ineffectual.<ref name=SchmidtTextbook/> As a result, weaker parties are eliminated by voters over time. Duverger pointed to statistics and tactics to suggest that voters tended to gravitate towards one of the two main parties, a phenomenon which he called ''polarization'', and tend to shun third parties.<ref name=EricBlack/> For example, some analysts suggest that the [[Electoral College (United States)|Electoral College]] system in the [[United States]], by favoring a system of winner-takes-all in presidential elections, is a structural choice favoring only two major parties.<ref name=twsNovGf2>{{cite magazine
|first= Kristina |last=Dell
|title= The Electoral College Explained
|magazine=[[Time (magazine)|Time]]
|date= November 1, 2004
|url= http://www.time.com/time/election2004/article/0,18471,749496,00.html
|access-date= 2010-11-07
|archive-date= 2010-07-10
|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20100710125857/http://www.time.com/time/election2004/article/0,18471,749496,00.html
|url-status= dead
}}</ref>

Gary Cox suggested that America's two-party system was highly related with economic prosperity in the country:

{{Quote|The bounty of the American economy, the fluidity of American society, the remarkable unity of the American people, and, most important, the success of the American experiment have all mitigated against the emergence of large dissenting groups that would seek satisfaction of their special needs through the formation of political parties.|Cox, according to George Edwards<ref name=GeorgeEdwards/>}}

However, as of 2022, United States' [[Gini coefficient]] (which measures income inequality) ranks near the worst of [[OECD]] countries and in the bottom half of all countries, while the country ranks outside the top five countries in terms of [[GDP per capita]].

An effort in 2012 by centrist groups to promote [[ballot access]] by third-party candidates called [[Americans Elect]] spent $15 million to get ballot access but failed to elect any candidates.<ref>{{cite magazine |first=Michael |last=Crowley |date=May 21, 2012 |magazine=[[Time (magazine)|Time]] |url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2114426-1,00.html |title=Indie Block: Why has a third-party presidential effort sputtered? |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120516234452/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2114426-1,00.html |archive-date=May 16, 2012 |access-date=August 11, 2013 |url-status=dead |quote=...and another $15 million has gone toward its most valuable asset: ballot access. Americans Elect has secured a ballot line in 26 states..}}</ref> The lack of choice in a two-party model in politics has often been compared to the variety of choices in the marketplace.

{{Quote|Politics has lagged our social and business evolution&nbsp;... There are 30 brands of Pringles in our local grocery store. How is it that Americans have so much selection for potato chips and only two brands{{snd}}and not very good ones{{snd}}for political parties?|Scott Ehredt of the Centrist Alliance<ref name=Cillizza>{{cite news |first=Chris |last=Cillizza |date=July 24, 2011 |newspaper=The Washington Post |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/voters-renewed-anger-at-washington-spurs-formation-of-third-party-advocate-groups/2011/07/24/gIQAts3KXI_story.html |title=Voters' renewed anger at Washington spurs formation of third-party advocate groups |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180621015857/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/voters-renewed-anger-at-washington-spurs-formation-of-third-party-advocate-groups/2011/07/24/gIQAts3KXI_story.html |archive-date=2018-06-21 |access-date=August 11, 2013}}</ref>}}