Editing Two-party system (section)

==Disadvantages==
Two-party systems have been criticized for downplaying alternative views,<ref name=Regis/><ref name=Boundless/> being less competitive,<ref name=Cato/> failing the [[median voter theorem]], encouraging voter apathy since there is a perception of fewer choices,<ref name=Regis/> and putting a damper on debate<ref name=Boundless/> within a nation. In a proportional representation system, lesser parties can moderate policy since they are not usually eliminated from government.<ref name=Regis/> One analyst suggested the two-party approach may not promote inter-party compromise but may encourage partisanship.<ref name=Boundless/> In ''The Tyranny of the Two-party system'', Lisa Jane Disch criticizes two-party systems for failing to provide enough options since only two choices are permitted on the ballot. She wrote:

{{Quote|Herein lies the central tension of the two–party doctrine. It identifies [[popular sovereignty]] with choice, and then limits choice to one party or the other. If there is any truth to Schattschneider's analogy between elections and markets, America's faith in the two–party system begs the following question: Why do voters accept as the ultimate in political freedom a binary option they would surely protest as consumers? ... This is the tyranny of the two–party system, the construct that persuades United States [[Citizenship in the United States|citizens]] to accept two–party contests as a ''condition'' of electoral democracy.|Lisa Jane Disch, 2002<ref name=twsOctNfasfgg>{{cite book
|author= Lisa Jane Disch
|title= The tyranny of the two-party system
|publisher= Columbia University Press
|year= 2002
|isbn= 978-0231110358
|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=Cm5a9X0hpyUC&q=hicks
|access-date= 2010-10-22
|archive-date= 2011-12-26
|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20111226094322/http://books.google.com/books?id=Cm5a9X0hpyUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=two+party+system#v=onepage&q=hicks&f=false
|url-status= live
}}</ref>}}

There have been arguments that the winner-take-all mechanism discourages independent or third-party candidates from running for office or promulgating their views.<ref name=Cato/><ref name=twsNovGf3>{{cite magazine
|author= Kristina dell
|title= The Electoral College Explained
|magazine= Time Magazine
|quote= Some argue that the winner-take-all mechanism in 48 states discourages independent or third party candidates from running because it would be difficult for them to get many electoral votes.
|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> [[Ross Perot]]'s former campaign manager wrote that the problem with having only two parties is that the nation loses "the ability for things to bubble up from the body politic and give voice to things that aren't being voiced by the major parties."<ref name="twsDecG44fwee"/> One analyst suggested that parliamentary systems, which typically are multi-party in nature, lead to a better "centralization of policy expertise" in government.<ref name=twsNovGg45>{{cite news
|title= The advantages of parliamentarianism
|newspaper= The Economist
|date= Jan 21, 2010
|url= https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/01/more_advantages_parliamentarianism_let_politicians_be_politicians
|access-date= 2010-11-07
|archive-date= 2010-11-25
|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20101125020447/http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/01/more_advantages_parliamentarianism_let_politicians_be_politicians
|url-status= live
}}</ref> Multi-party governments permit wider and more diverse viewpoints in government, and encourage dominant parties to make deals with weaker parties to form winning coalitions.<ref name=twsNovGi22>{{cite news
|author= Chris Weigant
|title= Exceptional Democracy
|work= Huffington Post
|quote= And, as a result, more parties are represented in their parliament after the elections. The Italian Parliament, for instance, recently had more than 70 parties represented. ... These deals are cut with the smaller parties by offering them the chance to fill high government offices...
|date= April 7, 2010
|url= https://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/exceptional-democracy_b_529411.html
|access-date= 2010-11-07
|archive-date= 2010-04-13
|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20100413195116/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/exceptional-democracy_b_529411.html
|url-status= live
}}</ref> Analyst Chris Weigant of ''[[the Huffington Post]]'' wrote that "the parliamentary system is inherently much more open to minority parties getting much better representation than third parties do in the American system".<ref name=twsNovGi22/> After an election in which the party changes, there can be a "polar shift in policy-making" when voters react to changes.<ref name=Regis/>

Political analyst A. G. Roderick, writing in his book ''Two Tyrants'', argued that the two American parties (the Republican Party and the Democratic Party) were highly unpopular (as of 2015), are not part of the political framework of state governments, and do not represent the 47% of the electorate who identify themselves as "independents".<ref name=WPR/> He makes a case that the [[POTUS|American president]] should be elected on a non-partisan basis,<ref name=WPR>Wisconsin Public Radio, [http://www.wpr.org/listen/767011 Two Tyrants] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160506221352/http://www.wpr.org/listen/767011 |date=2016-05-06 }} interview by Kathleen Dunn with author A.G. Roderick</ref><ref name=twoTyrants>{{cite book
|title= Two Tyrants
|author= A.G. Roderick
|publisher= City of Gold Publishing
|year= 2014
|isbn= 978-0990889205
|url= https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23411553-two-tyrants
|access-date= 2016-04-23
|archive-date= 2020-10-02
|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20201002181323/https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23411553-two-tyrants
|url-status= live
}}</ref><ref name="twsWNYCRadio">{{cite web
| date= July 27, 2015
| publisher= WNYC Public Radio
| url= http://www.wnyc.org/story/what-causes-two-party-monopoly-politics/
| title= Republicans and Democrats: America's Two Tyrants?
| access-date= April 23, 2016
| quote= ...only about eight percent of Americans feel confident in our partisan Congress ... 47 percent of Americans ... identify as independents. ...
| archive-date= August 7, 2016
| archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20160807191249/http://www.wnyc.org/story/what-causes-two-party-monopoly-politics/
| url-status= live
}}</ref> and asserts that both political parties are "cut from the same cloth of corruption and corporate influence."<ref name="twsHonoMag1">{{cite magazine
| author= Loren Moreno
| date= June 15, 2015
| magazine= Honolulu Magazine
| url= http://www.honolulumagazine.com/Honolulu-Magazine/June-2015/15-Hawaii-Books-to-Read-This-Summer/index.php?cparticle=4
| title= Two Tyrants
| access-date= April 23, 2016
| quote= ... since both parties are cut from the same cloth of corruption and corporate influence, the American populace is left in a "crisis of creativity," ...
| archive-date= May 8, 2016
| archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20160508084827/http://www.honolulumagazine.com/Honolulu-Magazine/June-2015/15-Hawaii-Books-to-Read-This-Summer/index.php?cparticle=4
| url-status= live
}}</ref>

Others have accused two party systems of encouraging an environment which stifles individual thought processes and analysis. In a two party system, knowledge about political leaning facilitates assumptions to be made about an individual's opinions on a wide variety of topics (e.g. [[abortion]], [[Tax|taxes]], the [[space program]], a [[Pandemic|viral pandemic]], [[human sexuality]], the [[Environmental issues|environment]], [[War|warfare]], opinions on police, etc.) which are not necessarily connected.<blockquote>"The more destructive problem is the way this skews the discussion of the issues facing the nation. The media – meaning news sources from [[Fox News]] to the [[The New York Times|''New York Times'']] and everything in between – seem largely incapable of dealing with any issue outside of the liberal versus conservative paradigm. Whether it's dealing with [[Islamic State|ISIS]], the [[United States debt ceiling|debt ceiling]], or [[climate change]], the media frames every issue as a simple debate between the Democratic and the Republican positions. This creates the ludicrous idea that every public policy problem has two, and only two, approaches. That's nonsense. Certainly some problems have only two resolutions, some have only one, but most have a range of possible solutions. But the "national" debate presents every issue as a simplistic duality, which trivializes everything."

—Michael Coblenz, 2016<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/267222-the-two-party-system-is-destroying-america |title=The two-party system is destroying America |work=The Hill |date=January 28, 2016 |access-date=2020-06-22 |archive-date=2020-06-22 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200622180212/https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/267222-the-two-party-system-is-destroying-america |url-status=live |last1=Coblenz |first1=Michael }}</ref></blockquote>