Why Has the Two-Party System Been So Resistant to Change?

It is widely believed that the United States operates under a two-party system, but this assumption is largely inaccurate. The US has a diverse political landscape with numerous parties, but only the Republicans and Democrats have a significant presence in Congress and hold the majority of state governorships and presidents. This article delves into the reasons why the two-party system remains resistant to change and explores the challenges faced by third parties.

The Myth of a Two-Party System

The notion that the US only has two major political parties is a simplification of the complex political reality. While the Republicans and Democrats dominate national-level politics, many smaller parties exist and regularly field candidates. However, the electoral system and other structural barriers make it extremely difficult for these third parties to gain traction.

Structural Barriers to Third-Party Success

Electoral System: The US uses a single-member district (SMD) system in most elections, which means that only the candidate with the most votes wins the seat. In addition, the plurality-winner system can result in a candidate winning with less than a majority of the vote. For example, in the 2010 Rhode Island gubernatorial election, Linc Chafee won with only 36% of the vote, defeating a field of four candidates.

Ballot Access Laws: Parties must meet high thresholds to appear on the ballot, either through past performance or by gathering petition signatures. These requirements often exclude minor parties, as they divert resources away from actual campaigning. The legislators who create these laws benefit from the exclusion of third-party challengers.

Campaign Finance Barriers: Political campaigns are extremely expensive, and third-party candidates struggle to raise the necessary funds. The average US Senate candidate in 2022 spent almost $3 million, while a US House candidate spent over $500,000. This lack of funding significantly reduces the chances of third-party candidates winning.

Media Coverage and Public Perception

Media Coverage: Major media outlets often exclude third-party candidates from coverage, making it difficult for them to reach voters. During the 2004 presidential election, the Washington Post decided not to assign reporters to cover third-party candidates. The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) also established rules that excluded candidates based on opinion poll performance, further marginalizing third parties.

Voices of Protest: Propaganda about third-party candidates as “spoilers” and “wasted votes” further dissuades voters. In 2000, many Democrats argued that Ralph Nader’s presence in the race cost Al Gore the election, and in 2016, Hillary Clinton supporters claimed Jill Stein’s candidacy cost her the election. These narratives contribute to voter reluctance to support third parties.

The Historical Context

The persistence of the two-party system is also rooted in historical context and voter expectations. Since the Civil War, only Democrats and Republicans have held the presidency. Millard Fillmore was the last president not from either major party, and he left office in 1853. This enduring dominance gives the impression that the two-party system is the norm, even though other parties do exist and participate in the political process.

Conclusion: The combination of electoral system issues, ballot access laws, campaign finance barriers, media coverage, and public perceptions create significant obstacles for third parties. Despite the presence of multiple political parties, the reality of American politics remains a two-party system. This article highlights the challenges and provides a deeper understanding of the reasons behind the persistence of the two-party system.