American GovernmentMr. Bekemeyer

Why Does the U.S. Have a Two-Party System?#1 – Electoral System DesignAdapted from International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, “Electoral System Design” (2005) and Lowi, et al., American Government: Power and Purpose (2009)

The First Past The Post (FPTP) system is the simplest form of [the] plurality/majority [electoral] systems, using single-member districts. . . . The voter is presented with the names of the nominated candidates and votes by choosing one, and only one, of them. The winning candidate is simply the person who wins the most votes. . . . This is often also known as a “winner-take-all” system.

[All federal elections in the United States feature a winner-take-all system, including the Electoral College and House elections conducted in single-member districts. It also includes Senatorial elections; only one Senate seat at a time is ever up for election in any given state, and a winner is chosen by plurality.]

[FPTP systems – and plurality/majority systems in general – are different from proportional representation systems, in which the number of seats won by a party or group of candidates is proportionate to the number of votes received.] Thus, if a major party wins 40 percent of the votes, it [will] win approximately 40 percent of the [legislative] seats, and a minor party with 10 percent of the votes [would] also gain 10 percent of the legislative seats. [Rather than single-member districts, proportional systems frequently feature a single, nation-wide district to which everybody belongs.]

To date, pure FPTP systems are found primarily in [Great Britain] and those countries historically influenced by Britain. Along with the UK, the cases most often analyzed are Canada, India and

Figure 1: Electoral System Families; Number of Countries and Territories

Figure 2: Electoral Systems: Number of Countries and Territories. (Note that “List PR” stands for list proportional representation, the most common form of proportional electoral systems.)

the United States. FPTP is also used by a number of Caribbean countries; in Latin America by Belize; in Asia by five countries, Bangladesh, Burma, India, Malaysia and Nepal; and by many of the small island countries of the South Pacific. In Africa 15 countries, mostly former British colonies, use FPTP systems. In total, of the 213 countries [included in this study] . . . 22 percent use FPTP systems. [See figures 1 and 2.]

Winner-take-all single-member district elections are frequently criticized for a number of reasons. These include:

In legislative elections, proportional representation reduces, whereas majority and plurality rules increase, the number of votes that political parties must receive to win legislative seats. For instance, in European parliamentary elections, a Green party that wins 10 percent of the national vote will also receive approximately 10 percent of the parliamentary seats. In American congressional elections, by contrast, a Green party winning only 10 percent of the popular vote would probably receive no congressional seats at all. This is a pattern which is repeated time and time again under FPTP. [Thus FPTP systems almost always result in a two-party system, as voters who might be attracted to minor parties are compelled to vote for one of two major parties in order to prevent from “wasting” their vote, given that minor parties have almost no chance of winning.]

It excludes minorities from fair representation. As a rule, under FPTP parties put up the most broadly acceptable candidate in a particular district so as to avoid alienating the majority of electors. Thus it is rare, for example, for a black candidate to be given a major party’s nomination in a majority white district in the UK or the USA, and there is strong evidence that ethnic and racial minorities across the world are far less likely to be represented in legislatures elected by FPTP.

Figure 3: Electoral System and Number of Parties (Source: Kernell, et al., The Logic of American Politics)

2

The most often cited advantages are that:

[By encouraging a two-party system], it provides a clear-cut choice for voters between two main parties. The inbuilt disadvantages faced by third and fragmented minority parties under FPTP in many cases cause the party system to gravitate towards a party of the ‘left’ [e.g. the Democratic Party in the United States] and a party of the ‘right’ [e.g. the Republican Party], alternating in power. Third parties often wither away and almost never reach a [high] level of popular support.

It gives rise to a coherent opposition in the legislature. [In a two-party system, the party that does not control government typically has substantial representation anyway. Thus] the opposition is . . . given enough seats to perform a critical checking role and present itself as a realistic alternative to the government of the day.

It advantages broadly-based political parties. In severely ethnically or regionally divided societies, FPTP is commended for encouraging political parties to be ‘broad churches,’ encompassing many elements of society, particularly when there are only two major parties and many different societal groups. . . . In Malaysia, for example, the Barisan Nasional government is made up of a broadly-based umbrella movement which [includes] Malay, Chinese and Indian candidates in areas of various ethnic complexions.

It excludes extremist parties from representation in the legislature. Unless an extremist minority party’s electoral support is geographically concentrated, it is unlikely to win any seats under FPTP. (By contrast, under a [list proportional representation] system with a single national-level district, even a fraction of 1 per cent of the national vote can ensure representation in the legislature.)

#2 – Ballot Access LawsSource: Ballot Access News, Wikipedia

Ballot access rules . . . regulate the conditions under which a candidate or political party is . . . entitled to . . . appear on voters' ballots. . . .

Very few people are aware of the ballot access [issue] in the United States. Each state writes its own ballot access laws, even for federal office, [determining who is eligible to appear on an election day ballot]. Since there is no single standard for the whole nation, the public and even the media are ignorant about ballot access laws. . . .

[B]allot-access laws are harsher for third-party congressional candidates than they are for third-party Presidential candidates. No third party has managed to run candidates for the U.S. House in over half of the nation's districts since 1920. By contrast, third-party Presidential candidates get on the ballots in all 50 states every so often. [Here are some sample ballot access laws]:

Georgia: The legislature passed a law in 1943 requiring that new party and independent candidates submit a petition signed by 5% of the number of registered voters in order to get on the ballot for any office. Previously, any party could get on the ballot just by requesting it. The result has been that

3

since 1943, there has not been one third party candidate on the Georgia ballot for U.S. House of Representatives.

Florida: Since 1931, there have been only two third party candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives on the ballot and only one third party candidate for the U.S. Senate. There has not been a third party or independent candidate on the ballot for Governor of Florida since 1920. Currently, a filing fee of 7% of the annual salary of the office is also required unless the candidate is a pauper, while a third party or independent candidate for any statewide office (other than president) needs 196,255 valid signatures – no independent candidate in any state in the U.S. has ever successfully complied with a signature requirement greater than 134,781 signatures.

Arkansas: The legislature passed a law in 1971 providing that new parties could not get on the ballot unless they submit a petition signed by a number of voters equal to 7% of the last vote cast. Because this law in 1977 was held unconstitutional (courts have since held that petition requirements cannot exceed 5% of the electorate), the legislature changed it to 3%.

Arizona: To gain ballot access, a new political party must gather signatures on a county by county basis, achieving over 20,000 good signatures from registered voters. Once this has been achieved the party must run a candidate for Governor or President who garners at least 5% of the vote to maintain ballot access for an additional two years, maintain at least 1% of registered voters registered with their party, or gather approximately the same number of signatures again every two years.

#3 – Campaign Finance Laws

Federal Public Campaign Finance Program for Presidential Candidates (Source: Federal Election Commission)Public funding of Presidential elections means that qualified Presidential candidates receive federal government funds to pay for the valid expenses of their political campaigns in both the primary and general elections. National political parties also receive federal money for their national nominating conventions.

The 1974 Amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act [established] the system we now have for public financing of Presidential elections.

The Presidential nominee of each major party may become eligible for a public grant of [$91.2 million] for campaigning in the [2012] general election. To be eligible to receive the public funds, the candidate must limit spending to the amount of the grant and may not accept private contributions for the campaign. . . .

Minor party candidates and new party candidates may become eligible for partial public funding of their general election campaigns. (A minor party candidate is the nominee of a party whose candidate received between 5 and 25 percent of the total popular vote in the preceding Presidential election. A new party candidate is the nominee of a party that is neither a major party nor a minor party.) [A minor party can receive presidential public campaign finance dollars only if their candidate received 5% of the national popular vote in the previous election.] A new party candidate receives partial public funding after the election if he/she receives 5 percent or more of the vote.

Since no third party candidate received 5% of the vote in 2008, only the Republican and Democratic . . . nominees may receive grants for the general election when they are nominated. Third-party candidates could qualify for retroactive public funds if they receive 5% or more of the vote in the general election. [In fact,

4

very few third parties have been eligible to receive federal campaign finance funds since the program was first introduced in the 1970’s.]

FECA Contribution Limits for 2011-2012 (Source: Federal Elections Commission)Some believe the contribution limits below prevent third parties from thriving in the United States. For example, imagine that a wealthy individual supported the Green Party. He or she would be unable to contribute more than a small amount of funds to the Green Party, as per the limits below.

Individual may give

To each candidate or

candidate committee

per election

To national party

committee per calendar

year

To state, district & local party

committee per calendar year

To any other political

committee per calendar

year

Special Limits

$2,500* $30,800*$10,000

(combined limit)

$5,000

$117,000 overall

biennial limit

National Party Committee may

give$5,000 No Limit No Limit $5,000

$43,100 to Senate

candidatesState, District &

Local Party Committee

may give

$5,000 (combined

limit)No Limit No Limit

$5,000 (combined

limit)No Limit

PAC (multicandidate)

may give$5,000 $15,000

$5,000 (combined

limit)$5,000 No Limit

PAC (not multicandidate)

may give$2,500 $30,800

$10,000 (combined

limit)$5,000 No Limit

Authorized Campaign

Committee may give

$2,000 No Limit No Limit $5,000 No Limit

#4 – Presidential DebatesThe following is adapted from the Open Debates website, an interest group formed to challenge the presidential debate system, which they find to be unfair and undemocratic.

Presidential debates were run by the . . . League of Women Voters until 1988, when the national Republican and Democratic parties [took] control of the debates by establishing the [bi-partisan] Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). [The CPD is in charge of staging the debates. They make decisions about the structure of the debates, as well as who may participate.]

5

Since 2000, the CPD has required that candidates reach 15 percent in national [opinion] polls to participate in the presidential debates. . . . The criterion directly contravenes the wishes of the majority of American voters. Seventy-six percent of registered voter supported [third party candidate] Ross Perot's inclusion in the 1996 debates, and 64 percent wanted [third party candidates] Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan included in the 2000 presidential debates. Yet, they were excluded from the debates. The CPD is relying on polling data to reject third party candidates when such data often shows that a majority of Americans want third-party candidates in the debates. The CPD is posing the wrong polling question. If the CPD is going to rely on polling data, it should simply ask who the public wants in the debates.

The criterion disregards the allocation of taxpayer funds. Under the Federal Election Campaign Act, a party that receives five percent of the popular vote qualifies for federal matching funds for the next election. Setting the criteria at 15 percent in pre-debate polls therefore raises the question: How is it that taxpayers can finance a candidate's campaign, and yet not be able to see or hear him? Mario Cuomo, former governor of New York, said, “Simple rule: If you're going to give them taxpayers' money on the theory that they're credible candidates, then you ought to let them participate.”

The criterion marginalizes the contributions of losing third-party candidates. Most third parties crumble. But, fleeting third-party movements and losing third-party candidates have made remarkable social and political contributions. Third-party candidates have introduced popular and groundbreaking issues that were eventually [taken up] by the major parties, such as: the abolition of slavery, unemployment insurance, social security, child labor laws, public schools, public power, the direct election of senators, the graduated income tax, paid vacation, the 40-hour work week, the formation of labor unions, and democratic tools like the initiative, the referendum and the recall. The CPD nullifies the contributions of contemporary third-party candidates.

The criterion ignores the vast array of structural barriers that confront third party candidates. Non-major party candidates face the most discriminatory ballot access laws of any democracy in the world, a winner-take-all system, significant financial contributions to the major parties, and scant media coverage.

In response to any suggestion that the criteria for inclusion be lowered, the CPD's first and foremost line of defense is, according to Executive Director Janet Brown, that “over 200 candidates run for president every four years. We can't let all of them on stage.” Talking about 200 candidates, however, is entirely misleading. Granted, roughly 200 people often file a presidential candidacy with the Federal Election Commission, including candidates like Billy Joe Clegg of the Clegg Won't Pull Your Leg Party. But, to lump these candidates with the likes of [strong third party candidates like] Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, and Pat Buchanan is absurd.

The Impact of Third PartiesSource: Bonnie Herzoh and Ethol Wood, Multiple Choice and Free-Response Questions in Preparation for the AP U.S. Government and Politics Examination (D&S Marketing Systems)

[Despite the domination of the two-party system,] minor or third parties have . . . played a role [in the American political system. Third parties allow for the introduction of new or different ideas into the political debate. They allow Americans who do not support either of the two major parties an outlet for political participation.] Probably the most influential third party in American history was the Populist Party of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that first represented the Ralph Nader was the Green Party

nominee in 2000. He has run for president as an independent on several other occasions.

6

interests of farmers, but was responsible for wide-ranging democratic reforms. The Populists’ best known leader was William Jennings Bryan, who was enticed to accept the nomination of the Democratic Party first in 1896. The fate of the Populists was the same as for more other third parties: their goals were adopted by a major party.

[Other] minor parties have . . . had a big impact on American politics when their platforms have been taken over by major parties. For example, Populist reforms for 8-hour workdays for city workers and farm subsidies for rural areas were later pushed forward by the Democratic Party. Third parties have [also] almost certainly affected election outcomes, most obviously in 1912, when Theodore Roosevelt, [a former Republican president,] ran for the Progressive Party, splitting the Republican vote and throwing the election to Democrat Woodrow Wilson. [In a similar example of this potential “spoiler effect” of third parties,] many Democrats believe that Al Gore would have won the election of 2000 had Ralph Nader not run. Likewise, some Republicans claim that Ross Perot, [who “stole” thousands of votes away from the Republican party,] was responsible for George H. W. Bush’s loss of the election of 1992.

The Parties Help Voters Decide

They help clarify the issues and simplify the choices voters have to make in elections. Without the parties, voters would have to find their way through a confusing maze of issues and candidate positions with little help. With parties, government can be held accountable—if you don’t like how Party A is running your city, you have a definite alternative to vote for.

The Parties Make Government More Effective

Parties are often the link among the different branches of the U.S. government and the three levels of government—federal, state, and local. They enable politicians to form coalitions and to get things done.

The Parties Make It Easier to Run for Office

Just as parties help the voters, they help candidates by providing an existing base of support and mobilizing voters and party supporters behind a candidacy.

The Parties Limit the Choices for Voters

Because we have only two dominant parties, the parties generally select candidates with the broadest possible appeal. The system discourages campaigning by “fringe” or even remotely controversial candidates.

The Parties Promote Division and Deadlock

Each party is forever seeking political advantage over the other. As a result, candidates and sitting officeholders are under pressure to stick to the “party line” and not to compromise with the other party. This hyper-competitive attitude contributes to gridlock in Congress, preventing constructive solutions to complex and controversial issues.

The Parties Promote Corruption

Throughout the nation’s history, the political parties have been associated with corrupt practices, such as patronage and the awarding of government contracts to party insiders—and those charges are still made today. In addition, the parties regularly face criticism for questionable fund-raising practices that effectively place politicians in debt to big contributors.

7