Question

1. Do you think the two-party system is still viable today? Why?/Why not?

2. Why are political parties so polarized and dysfunctional today? Would you consider voting for a third party?

Answer 1

Question 1)

A two-party system in politics creates a structure where the electorate gives a significant majority of its votes to only two major parties. That means one or the other can win a majority in the legislature. It is the system of governing that is present in the United States, but the actual implementation of forming a government is similar to systems that have multiple parties

The structure of the two-party system compels participants to strive for a majority of votes in specific electoral areas. Members of the national representative assemblies are chosen from single-member districts, with voters often choosing between two fairly evenly matched politicians who compete with each other for the office.

Third-party politicians have the right to run for office in a two-party system, but defeat is usually the outcome unless the people involved receive support or representation from one of the two larger parties

A two-party system is essential for any nation to build a healthy polity. It is the only way to satisfy the people's basic democratic desire to know the majority view on any issue. This makes people more accepting of electoral and legislative decisions, and creates a decisive and participatory democracy. Knowing the two extreme views also allows centrist policies to emerge, which can have even wider consensus. A two-party system also makes governments more responsible, for neither the ruling nor the opposition party has any scapegoats. Above all, it ends political games among parties for the sake of grabbing power.

When an emergency situation arises, the two-party system makes it easy for the government to respond quickly to the situation.

Each person who runs for elected office must declare which party they will represent in office, even if they decide to be an Independent. When there are dozens of parties available to join, then understanding the platform of a candidate can become challenging. Some governments allow anyone who wants to start a new party to do so as well. Thanks to the two-party system, there is a general consensus already known about a candidate due to their affiliation.

Despite all these advantages, two party system creates a system of exclusiveness. Some states vote for the same party again and again.

You know that your vote counts, but it won’t contribute to the electoral tally for the presidential election since a majority vote doesn’t matter. People can feel excluded in the two-party system because neither option works for them, but it doesn’t allow for representation of an independent either.There is also an aura of exclusiveness and superiority in this system. Unless you’re in the party that wins, it can feel like those from the outside are targeting you with their conduct. We might get new ideas to enter the two-party system from outside of it, but the overall structure limits individuality. You’re either with the party or against them.

Question 2)

Political system is dysfunctional and polarization is intense because parties are too weak.

A “strong” party is a party that presents voters with a coherent policy agenda. To be able to construct and deliver on a party platform, party leaders select candidates; but backbenchers in the legislature in turn choose and replace party leaders depending on how successfully the leaders deliver electoral victory.

The weakness of parties exacerbates all sorts of problems. Many critics point to the role of money in politics as the source of political ills of two party system. But that gets the causal arrows of the problem the wrong way around. Politicians need staggering amounts of money to pay for highly individualized campaigns. If they could campaign on a coherent party platform of broadly popular policies, their election costs would be far lower — as they are in countries with strong political parties such as Britain and Germany. In those countries, people tend to vote for the party, not the individual.

The Founders of constitution in US built a political structure of multiple checks and balances to thwart tyranny — at the cost of governability.

Strong parties capable of delivering on competitive policy platforms are the foundation of democratic accountability.

People are so locked into political identities that there is virtually no candidate, no information, no condition, that can change their minds. We will justify almost anything or anyone so long as it helps our side, and the result is a politics devoid of guardrails, standards, persuasion, or accountability.

Habits of civility and collegial deference that used to be generally recognized and respected in institutions like the U.S. Senate have changed. Abrasive adversarialism seems more often on display. And the slash-and-burn tactics are used even when they appear to offer few electoral advantages.