by Jerry Curtis

Created on: March 16, 2010

Those who believe that the our republic’s two-party system is not working well, should consider the alternatives: the failed one-party system that brought down the Soviet Union or the splinter-group multi-party systems of France, Italy and others. The former was oppressive and unworkable; the latter makes for a tepid and weak brew, which would break our country into ungovernable factions.

Our two-party system has been part of the American political fabric since before George Washington warned us about parties and factionalism in her farewell address. In his own cabinet were the seeds of the political parties that would emerge and dominate our political landscape in a debate over the role of government that endures today.

That debate was led by Alexander Hamilton, who believed that the Federal Government had a major role in everyone’s lives (principally financial). His opponents were led by Thomas Jefferson, who believed that the role of the Federal Government should be limited, and that the states should hold the majority of power in our federal system.

That fundamental debate evolved over the years and was taken up by our modern political parties, albeit in somewhat of a reversal of roles. For example, Abraham Lincoln believed that the power of the Federal Government was overarching. He gave us the Income Tax and used military power to crush the south, who believed that their states rights were tantamount.

Today, Republicans carry the banner of “limited government,” while the Democrats are at the vanguard of government activism through programs, regulation, and big spending. Each political party, then, provides an alternative and a contrast. In turn, that alternative and contrast offers a “big umbrella” for the left-to-right spectrum of political inclinations. Those who are not “inclined” to either are typically the middle of our political landscape, and they are the voters that both major parties try to influence.

Is the “system” working well? Considering the vastness of our country and the fact that federal systems don’t always work well in countries of our size and population, our two-party system works well enough. Here’s why:

Most state elections are based on “winner takes all,” that is, a candidate does not have to win the majority of votes, only a plurality. The same thing applies to our presidential elections, where in every state but two, the winner gets all that state’s electoral votes.  

The foregoing results in more effective governing. By discouraging splinter party elections to our legislatures and a clear winner in our executive branch, the winning party has a clear mandate to govern, without the elitist deals we see in coalition governments of places like Israel and Italy.

So as a republic, where our representatives serve for a finite period in hopes for reelection, our two-party system serves us as well as can be expected. Someone once said that our system is imperfect, but it is the best around.

Learn more about this author, Jerry Curtis.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.