Talk:Two-party system

Untitled

The disadvantages/advantages section needs a lot of work if it's going to stay. I'm sure if I were to forward this to the Election Methods List, they'd have a field day with this. -- RobLa

Why don't you already, Rob? I'd love for them to whip up the entire voting systems section. DanKeshet 14:34 Feb 15, 2003 (UTC)

It would be more effective if you joined the list and brought up the topic, and I seconded it.  :) -- RobLa 01:59 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

Ha! Been there, done that, got an overloaded inbox. I still peruse the archives via the web, sometimes. Il send an e-mail to the list inviting them soon, though. DanKeshet 02:28 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

hee hee...that's what procmail is for  :) -- RobLa 05:16 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I question the extent to which the listed "advantages" are such. - Montréalais

I have no idea if you have proposed a solution to "the money poblem" in any attempt to reform the "two party" morass.

Ever look at the "unopposed" Representatives? They stand immune to challenges because of thier "War Chest"

Eliminating unuse political campaign money unspent after an election would go along way to attractin viable opposition IMHO

Don AKA MAX founder http://www.wingsofanangel.com

common poster on alt.prisons ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

argument in the wrong spot

The following is under the list of arguments FOR the two-party system:

"Narrowly based ideological factions can force the major parties to help them in exchange for their support. This can create a chaotic and fluctuating system of alliances that intensifies confusion among voters. Additionally, this "tie-breaker" influence minor parties achieve can serve to undermine the true positions of the major parties."

Sounds more like an argument AGAINST the two-party system to me. I'm going to move it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.65.16 (talk) 13:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

UK a two-party system

Should the UK really be listed as an example? It's more "two and a half" parties - plus, the predecessor of the Lib Dems "half" party, the Liberal Party, did hold power at one stage. In any case, there is no definite reason why the situation may not change, with the Tories becoming the "half" party. Certainly the trend seems to be for an increasing Lib Dem vote. I believe the situation if the local election results were repeated in the next general election, suggests a hung parliament (no party having an outright majority). I really don't think it's quite a two-party system like the US. Are there ANY non-Republicrats in the US government currently? zoney ███ talk 01:38, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There is one independent (a Socialist, really) in the House of Representatives and one independent in the Senate. Your point is taken, though. Funnyhat 08:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And what's funny is that they're both from Vermont, iirc. Wouter Lievens 22:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes I wondered about setting up Canada as a 2+ party system, but not saying the same for the UK, even while the LibDem's were small there was probably enough local political parties (Welsh, Scots, N.Irish) around to upset the balance (I remember several times the conservative having to rely on N.Irish votes at least to get more dubious measures through). Certainly in the last couple of election cycles it is becoming even less so - although it could be argued we just might be in a period when one party is dying out to be replaced by another, like with the Labour/Whig's early last century. The most recent election, 2005, was Labour 356 (35.3% of vote, 54% seats), Con 198 (32.3%, 30%), LD 62 (22.1%, 9%), and others 30 (10.3%, 5%).

Compare this to Canada in 2006 with 74% of the seats going to the main two parties, has a greater percentage, but it's mainly regionalised - Bloc Quebecois only stood in 24% of seats, but gained two thirds of those (i.e. 16% of the total), outside that region Canada is more of a two party system than the UK. Equally the UK tends to be (sometimes) dominiated by local politics outside of England. Sfnhltb 18:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

A very simple answer. NO! As a political ssertion it is completely false.

I agree. The UK has 3 major parties: The Labour Party, the Conservative Party, and Liberal Party. Plus, other major parties as well, but those are the ones that I know of. ForestAngel (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

But Wikipedia states it as "A two-party system is a form of party system where two major political parties dominate the voting in nearly all elections. As a result, all, or nearly all, elected offices end up being held by candidates endorsed by the two major parties". This is Labour and Conservatives and has been for about 90 years. UKWiki 10:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

That is BTW also the case in Canada. Since 1867, all Prime Ministers of Canada have been members of either the Liberal Party or a self-styled Conservative Party. 161.24.19.82 17:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

according to the Wikipedia definition as cited by UKWiki above then the UK most certainly has a 2 party system. The Lib-dems are a significant third party but none the less the two big parties dominate every election. Vexorg (talk) 00:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

"Examples" paragraph needs work

Here is how it presently stands:

The two-party system has historically been common in the so-called Anglosphere nations such as United States and United Kingdom, as well as in many small or newly independent countries such as Jamaica. While Americans and Britons often see the two-party system as natural, based on their long experiences with it, it is in fact a product of the particular rules in place. The two parties that dominate thus have an incentive to keep the rules as they are, so as to prevent electoral losses to smaller parties.

Exactly which rules are in place in the United States that keep the two parties where they are? The point made earlier in the article about plurality voting is not an issue; the two parties legitimately *do* receive portions of the vote comparable to their representation. (In the 2004 election, for example, Bush and Kerry combined to receive 99.0% of the popular vote.) It's not like there are a bunch of third parties getting 20% of the vote or whatever.

Clarified article by pointing out that while number of votes sometimes equals representation, it is not assured to be (which leads to tactical voting...)--68.169.173.148 11:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but this is mostly due to tactical voting. Also, the two century-long dominance of the two-parties has essentially lead Americans to believe that they're pretty much the same thing as the American government - opposition has withered and now only encompasses the far extremes who can't find any sort of common ground with the major parties. People on the outskirts or the middle are basically disfranchised but can do little about it. It can be assumed that if America didn't use plurarity voting there would probably be far more parties and independents.

74.251.3.13 05:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

ALL parties in the United States not named the Republicans or Democrats have extremely small membership. I'm sure that they are discriminated against in some form or another, but the article presently does not explain how this is so. Funnyhat 08:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the assertion is not justifiable as it stands. There may be a 'stable equilibrium' of its own accord, or there may be something constraining politicians into one of two camps, or there may be clear political polarisation, or the voting system may influence things, or there may be some sort of inertia. The UK and US experiences in the past half-century are different. And so on. Charles Matthews 13:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One example of systematic bias toward a two-party system in the U.S. is the Presidential debates sponsored by an organization run jointly by the Democratic and Republican parties. The threshold for participation is that a candidate must be achieving at least 15% of the projected vote (not sure whether it's likely voters or all registered voters) in major public opinion polls. This practice has effectively kept out third party candidates polling in the single digits who might get some currency from such a debate. These changes I believe were brought about by the scare the two parties got from Ross Perot in the 1992 election. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 14:05, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Should the list of two-party states perhaps be moved to a separate page, listing in a table all countries in the world and the number of parties (none, one, dominant, two or multi, in accordance with the classification on the series box). If this were the case, caveats could be listed (such as the ones being discussed for the US?). It should be noted that for most countries, the classification is listed in their "List of political parties" page. Torfason 19:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I think there should be a specific list of two-party states, the United States being an obvious one. This page seriously needs a lot of work. ForestAngel (talk) 16:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Germany -- a two-party system?

Is Germany a two-party system? We have two major parties (social democrats and conservatives), although coalitions with smaller parties are oftenly formed (especially on a regional basis). The two "third" parties are the Greens and the liberals, although in some regions the democratic socialists and even the right-wing extremists get a hold as well (the former having formed regional coalition governments before).

Traditionally German regional governments are coalitions between one of the two major and one of the minor parties, whereas the national government is oftenly made up of a major party alone (the fading social democrats / Greens coalition being a counter example).

Traditionally the conservatives always choose the liberals as a coalition partner and the social democrats stick to the Greens, although that holds less true on a regional basis.

Germany has a law which states that a party has to hold more than 5% of the votes to enter a regional parliament, although there is an exception which allows individual representatives to be voted directly into the parliament (although, IIRC, they then act as individuals rather than members of their parties). The whole system was created in an attempt to prevent the mistakes of the former governmental systems from occuring again.

In practice the two largest parties receive most of the media attention tho, and the thirds are usually only discussed if they enter a coalition or do something particularily outrageous (such as the two nationalist parties forming an alliance to increase each other's chance of getting seats in the parliaments). -- Ashmodai 14:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Germany is definitely not a two-party system as defined in this article. Although there are two "dominating" parties they rarely receive an absolute majority in parliament. In 60 years, there has been no federal election with an absolute majority for a single party - the closest was in 1959, I think, with CDU and CSU together having an abs. majority (they are often considered one party in Germany as they have a joint Fraktion and joint chancellor candidates).--Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Canada Not A "Two Party Plus" System

I removed the following:

In Canada, only two parties (Liberals and Conservatives) have a realistic chance of winning, but the other parties often get enough seats that the party in power must consider their views — though rarely to the point where a European-style coalition government is necessary. Canada is sometimes described as a "two party plus" system.

I am of the opinion that the descriptor "two party plus" system is not at all accurate, and is based on a rather archaic quote from sometime in the 60s. If the author of the above can find a contemporary citation in which the media, political commentators, historian or academics currently use this term, I believe only then should the above paragraph be reconsidered for inclusion.

The Liberal Party has had a virtual monopoly on federal government power for about a century. The most significant Progressive Conservative governments (Diefenbaker and Mulroney) were politcal anomalies. So arguably one could say it is even more accurately a "one-party plus" system.

However, it is only most correctly accurate from an objective standpoint to call it a multiparty system. Federal parliament has had representation from *at least* three parties for about a century. The CCF/NDP has maintained an often strong and influential presence in Ottawa since its inception in 1933, and they held the balance of power in a couple of Liberal minority governments. Social Credit had representation in Parliament for over five decades. The Progressive Conservative Party went down to massive defeat in 1993, and their position was usurped by the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois. From 1993 until 2005 there were five parties represented in Parliament. Prime Minister Harper's Conservative Party is the result of a merger between the Canadian Alliance (successor to Reform) and the Progressive Conservatives. The PC party did not sit as the Official Opposition at all after their defeat in 1993.

To broaden the argument a bit, I'd like to note that on a provincial level, the CCF/NDP has formed the government in five provinces and one territory (Saskatchewan, Manitoba, British Columbia, Ontario, Nova Scotia and Yukon), Social Credit dominated the governments of British Columbia and Alberta for decades, and the Parti Quebecois and the Union Nationale both formed governments in Quebec.

When you balance it all out, it is difficult to see how Canada can be considered anything but a multi-party system.

This is absolutely correct. Canada is has a multiparty system, not two-party. This should be changed soon. Mike.lifeguard 00:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Only two parties have effectively governed Canada over the past 140 years. It is clear then that Canada has a de facto two-party system at the federal level. Even though smaller parties may be also represented in Parliament and may hold the balance of power in a hung legislature, they are not represented in government and do not hold cabinet positions. 161.24.19.82 17:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my original statement above. Since the fall of the Mulroney/Campbell PC government in 1993 we have seen no less than five parties form the Official Opposition. Hipsterlady 05:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

A temporary anomaly that has been now corrected. Since the formation of the "new" Conservative party and Harper's election victory in 2006, Canada is firmly back to a two-party system. No matter what one may argue, the truth is that no one in the foreseeable future will become the PM of Canada unless he/she is the leader either of the Liberal Party or some incarnation of the Conservative Party. 200.177.7.127 (talk) 13:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Portugal is not a two-party system

In the last general elections for parliament these were the results:

Summary of the 20 February 2005 Portuguese Assembly of the Republic election results

Party		Votes	%	Change	Seats
Socialist Party		2,588,312	45.0%	+07.2%	121
Social Democratic Party		1,653,425	28.8%	-11.4%	75
Unitarian Democratic Coalition		433,369	07.6%	+00.6%	14
People's Party		416,415	07.3%	-01.5%	12
Left Bloc		364,971	06.4%	+03.7%	8
Communist Party of the Portuguese Workers		48,186	00.8%	-	0
New Democracy		40,358	00.7%	-	0
Humanist Party		17,056	00.3%	-	0
National Renovator Party		9,374	00.2%	-	0
Socialist United Workers' Party		5,535	00.1%	-	0
Democratic Party of the Atlantic		1,618	00.0%	-	0
Blank Ballots		103,537	01.8%	-	-
Invalid Ballots		65,515	01.1%	-	-
Total (Turnout 64,26 %)		5,747,834	-	-	230
Source: Portuguese Electoral Comission) Registered Voters: 8,944,508

several coalitions have governed the country, this includes AD(Aliança Democrática) between PSD and CDS-PP...

I've removed Portugal from the list

--85.138.18.138 19:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC) PEV - 2

Australia is not two-party

Australia does not have a two-party system. The Liberals overwhelmingly at a state and federal level will be in coalition with the Nationals, and in the past Labor have sometimes entered into coalitions. The presence of the Greens, Nationals, Family First and the Democrats also seem to refute Australia's classification as two-party.

Whether Labor or the Coalition are in power federally, the reliance on third-party support in the Senate is significant. The Democrats helped pass GST laws, Family First were needed for VSU, the Greens, Democrats and Labor have co-operated to block other legislation.

There is no way that you can call Australia 'two-party'. --MickBarnes 06:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with the above, the fact that other parties when seats in the house of reprasentatives really shows it's not two party relative to the two party system of the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.115.243 (talk) 11:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to BE BOLD and remove Australia. I think the opening sentence of the article is justification. "where two major political parties dominate voting in nearly all elections, at every level." No party can be described as dominating at every level. The Greens are strong on a federal and state level in Tasmania, Family First are gaining power both federally and in South Australia. Under the Howard Government it was a coalition of the Liberals and Nationals. This only includes parties in the current government, if we step back a few elections we can see the influences of The Democrats and One Nation, not to mention the waxing and waning of independents. Going back further we can see that the Liberals didn't exist until 1944 and other parties have risen and fallen with the political winds. If we delve into State politics we can see even more parties holding sway and going to a local level even more parties and independents. It's never been the case that ONLY two parties have dominated Australian politics, especially at every level. 203.59.154.164 (talk) 12:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Americocentrism?

Are the terms "majority leader", "minority leader", "majority whip", "minority whip" etc used outside the US? The article implies that they're used in a lot of two-party systems. The UK was formerly a two-party system but I've never come across these terms used in reference to British politics, historically or otherwise. The equivalents would be "Leader of the House" (in the Commons - not an exact equivalent), "Leader of the Opposition", "Government Chief Whip", "Opposition Chief Whip". -JdSf 13:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I was going to post something almost exactly like this and I strongly agree with JDSF on this. Are the majority/minority leader terms actually used to such an extent that they are necessary, informative, and generally accurate when describing two party systems? I don't think they are and I especially don't think they are relevant or necessary in the introduction. If those titles need to be addressed they should have a section outside the introduction and should involve more than the majority/minority leader terms. - glenstein 76.179.26.12 23:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The UK has "whips" - I'm not certain if they're referred to as "minority" and "minority" whips. That's probably where we got the term in America. However, "Whips" in the UK have a lot more power over party members, although since the UK legislature has much more power in general than the US congress the UK whips, ironically enough, actually aren't the important figure there that they are in the US. There is no "majority leader" or "Minority leader". The most powerful people usually make up the cabinet or shadow cabinet, and the majority party leader is always appointed as the prime minister.

74.251.3.13 05:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is absolutely Americocentric, it gives a large space to the U.S. situation and no space for other countries' case study —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.53.10.168 (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Clarification of concepts?

After a conflict on Single-party system, an informal mediator suggested that part of the problem could be unclear definitions of the concepts we use. I started a discussion about that here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Single-party_state#Clarification_of_concepts.3F Please join in. --Regebro 01:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The term "Two Party System" is inherently POV.

I want to remove all labels of countries as Two Party Systems. There is no such thing as "throwing away your vote". The term "Two Party System" and its application to any nation is blatently politically charged. Only a member of one of two big parties would want you to think there is only a choice between two parties, using this false dilemma as proof. The term "System" has two pertinent meanings, one in which the "Two party system" is created as a two party system deliberately, and "Two party system" as an adjective to describe the general configuration of the state of political affairs by neutral observation alone. It is this ambiguity that makes the phrase charged. Defenders of the term "Two Party System" will say that it is self-evidently a two party system by observation, and opponents will say that it implies that the government was "intended" to have only two big parties. Politicians of course, use the term almost exclusively to eliminate the "third party" vote, and for that purpose this phrase has been exceedingly successful. To include a list of "two party system" labeled nations is a true disservice to democracy and anything other than deletion of the list or the addition of a noticable disclaimer is heinously dishonest and a promotion of personal political leanings. Android8 16:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Technically, you're right, but in a practical sense, let's call it what it is. Technically, there's no such thing as "down", only "toward the nearest center of gravity", but that doesn't stop anyone from calling it down. Likewise, while (at least in the U. S.) it may theoretically be open to anyone to run for any office, the parties with all the power have set the system up to keep themselves in power. It would take some major reforms (political and social) to allow a third party or an Independant candidate to achieve a majority or presidency. So, in a practical sense, yes this is a de facto two-party (or one two-sided party) system. And that's not a POV, it's just a fact. Noclevername 05:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

My argument still stands. "The two party system in the U.S. occurred to prevent one party from gaining too much power, by creating a second party with opposite policies." If all of the major candidates from both major parties affiliate themselves with the Council on Foreign Relations, an organization that promotes one idea of Foreign Policy, the New World Order, how can we say that there are two parties? It is a matter of perspective, point of view, when you say two party-system. It is more truly an example of spreading False Consciousness than "just a fact". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Android8 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you are both a bit right and wrong! The "two party system" is an actual term in political science, coined in 1911 to describe the British model. It does not mean only two parties or even two particular parties. It means that in a multiparty system two of the parties tend to be larger and more successful then the others. Research done after the Second World War found that a nation that elects its legislators using winner-take-all single-member-districts with plurality voting will have a two-party system. Nations that use some form of proportional representation tend to have smaller parties with a likely chance of winning a majority of the legislative elections, remember the term was coined to address the British parliamentary model. The major difference between the US and other stable, two-party nations (UK, Canada, Australia) is ballot access. In the 1930s, ballot access in the US became harsh while it remained fairly lenient in other nations. American minor parties must spend most of their time worrying about ballot and debate access. User:Browned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.127.166.144 (talk) 00:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Garbage article

I was tempted to delete the entire "advantages and disadvantages" portion, and I certainly would have been well within my rights... for one thing there are inherent contradictions in the "criticisms" section such as being conducive to extremist politics yet being a "one party" system. Another thing is that only one of the points is sourced. It's cute to put the US in with Trinidad at the end to give it a black eye. Just another reason why no serious journalist or academic would use Wikipedia as a direct reference.--Rotten 02:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry your great nation's name begins with "U", it must be very traumatic ... Chris cheese whine 07:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

My complaint wasn't about where it stood on the list. Deletion restored.--Rotten 10:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That's odd, because it looks an awful lot like you weren't happy with that particular placement. I have put the list back on, on the basis that no reason has been put forward for taking it out - its contents are backed up at the relevant articles on those nations. Other than the lack of sources, I don't see a major problem with the article, since it appears to be generally accurate, and doesn't say anything overly controversial in its current state. Chris cheese whine 10:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is still junk, is there a single cited statement in the whole article? I may have to put an unsourced tag at the beginning.--Rotten 10:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

---

There is an online Britannica entry for "two-party system" (here). The publicly displayed text is:

political system in which the electorate gives its votes largely to only two major parties and in which one or the other party can win a majority in the legislature. The United States is the classic example of a nation with a two-party system. The contrasts between two-party and multiparty systems are often exaggerated.

Given this, and the number of times the phrase crops up in other contexts, certainly some article at this entry is justified, whatever the quality of the existing text. - David Oberst 10:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I perceive what is to me a rather obvious bias (against the two-party system) in the discussion of its advantages.

Also, should we use the word "hypothetical" for median voter, rather than mythical (or re-word the point entirely?).

I dispute the neutrality of this article.

Its hard to be neutral when so many people dislike the two party system. In my own biased opinion I think two party systems undermine democracy. 74.38.99.188 21:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think many people are enthusiastic about it. 99% of the population is simply apathetic about the issue, and there are so many different organization proposing so many different 'fixes' that it gets confusing to the 1% that strongly dislike it. That said, the article is still NPOV and completely uncited. If you don't fix the thing an editor is going to come in and delete the entire section. The arguments for a two party system are neutered beyond repair and the large amount of largely uncited material in the 'against' section is so large it dwarfs everything. It's just not fair at all, and claiming that "There is no way to defend it!", I'm sorry, it just isn't going to cut it. It's like a conservative going to the article on liberalism, making it an anti-liberal article, and claiming in defense 'There's no way to defend liberalism!' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.251.37.109 (talk) 02:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Solid South

I don't know that this represents anything that's trying to be illustrated. The Republicans are the party of Lincoln and so Southerners flocked to the other party, which they already tended to favor anyway. For these reasons, I've moved it here. BioTube (talk) 14:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

In the US, the Democrats often landslided in the southern portion up until the late 20th century, winning almost every seat available in most states in a phenomenon known as the Solid South.

NPOV

This article mostly seems to criticize the two party form of electoral organization. Although in practice it may be corrupt due to corporatism etc, it should be noted that this is due to factors not directly related to a two party system i.e. global political economy. One66667 (talk) 07:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Factual Based Comments

(1) A two party system is a term coined (early 1900s) to describe the British political system and refers to two parties being larger, and more successful, then other parties. The term does not mean, nor should it imply, only two parties or two particular parties.

(2) Most of the American founding fathers hated the idea of political organizations; parties and or groups. They were largely of a school of thought that lawmakers should be independent from such entities and simply promote the 'general will'. This is in contract to most modern day political scienctests and political theorists who view parties and groups as a very important part of a healthy representative government.

(3) In the Federalist 10, Madison is expressing a common fear of many man of his era. You have to remember that many of the same men who disliked political organizations would go onto to be involved with them, even lead them. They also took for granted the notion that suffrage and standing for public office and political organizations were expressive First Amendment acts. Madison is explaining how all of this can reconciled; If political organizations, parties and groups, are to exist, then -- says Madison -- let us have a lot of them so that no one party or group becomes too powerful. This does not mean that he supports proportional representation (which did not exist at the time) but that he would have opposed the harsh ballot and debate access rules that are often imposed upon Independent and minor party candidates. In a sense, he transformed an election into a free marketplace based on 18th century political-economic liberalism. User:Browned.

Some Thoughts

I made some brief changes to the article to point out that a two-party system is a theory of politics, not a fact like it was being presented. This might not be the case if we are more specific on what we mean, but since it wasn't, I changed it. Here are my suggestions on how the article can be improved.

1) This is a political theory, not a fact. For instance if you go to the American Empire page, you'll see that it is called controversial term. I see no reason why a two-party system is any less controversial of a term. It is technically a theory and should be treated as such. So to categorically state certain countries are two-party systems is inherently POV, we should instead say that they are "claimed" to be two party systems and then cite somebody who is making the claim.

2) We need to know where and when the term first originated. With this the reader is thus allowed judge what biases, or lack there of, the originator of the term might have had. Was it created by an advocate of such a system? An opponent of it?

3) We really need to illustrate the variation of countries that are called two party systems. You have countries like the United States where two parties are in complete control, you have countries like the UK and Canada that don't have coalitions but have other significant parties, and you have various other countries like Germany that run on coalitions. If we don't illustrate the difference, then the reader might get the false impression that party politics is the same in all these countries... but in Britain, Labour doesn't have to form a coalition with the Greens to have control of the government, and in the U.S., the Democrats/Republicans don't have to deal with their version of the Liberal Democrats.

4) We need need to reference arguments for and against a two-party system, as well as some arguments about whether the term is even accurate to begin with. This shouldn't be hard to find. In this we could also note what the perceived results of a two party system are. For instance, the article currently claims the two parties become a dichotomy of the left-wing and right-wing...which is a blatant POV violation. How many Swedes would view the U.S. Democrats as left-wing? How many Americans would view the Swedish moderate party as right-wing? It's fine to say that it is claimed that it becomes a dichotomy of the left and right, but to say it as a fact is inherently misleading, because there are plenty of people who disagree.

Unless there is arguments against these suggestions, which I can't see, then when I have the time I will try and make some of these improvements myself, but help in the matter would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sizemore101 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

1. "It is claimed that" tends to be a weasal phrase that is best avoided (see WP:WTA). You're correct that for issues of controversy, it's best to say "Bob says that...", but, on the other hand, it is usually not necessary to say "Virtually all mainstream political scientists say..." The fact that the US is functionally a two-party system is not in serious dispute; currently 2/100 Senators are members of a third party, and this is an unusually large amount compared to the past (In 2005, it would have been 0/100). And with Ventura gone, 0/50 governors are members of a third party. That says it all, really.

2. More on the history of the term would be nice, but it seems to me to be pretty neutral and referential. In other words, I doubt this was a special term designed to endorse / discourage two-party systems; rather, it's, uh, the natural English way to describe a political system dominated by two parties. Could be wrong, and more research would be nice, but my hunch is that there's nothing to find here.

3 The UK and Canada aren't two-party systems, though. (The UK is admittedly kinda close, and Canada can be two-party by province, but a different two parties...) This article should ideally do some compare & contrast vs. other systems, though.

4 Well, a two-party system tends to inherently encourage two "sides," which by tradition now one of which is left-wing and the other of which is right-wing. This obviously means "left-wing and right-wing for this country and time period," though, so I'm not sure your comparison between Sweden and the US has much relevance. The Democrats represent the American left-wing and the Republicans the American Right-Wing, while the Australian Liberals represent the Australian right-wing and Labour the Australian left-wing. Nothing contradictory about that; I'm not sure if a "global left-wing" even makes tons of sense since left-and-right wing are inherently defined relatively. As in, the British "left" in 1920 would seem unspeakably reactionary to some people today, yet is nevertheless easily identified as the "left" in comparison to the "right" of its time period.

Anyway, this article definitely does need some work. While I disagree with your changes on the two-party system merely being a "perception," any work on adding referenced material for what political scientists see as advantages and disadvantages of a two-party system would be great. A previous version of this article had a long laundry list of WP:OR observations and thoughts, and getting a referenced view would be a great improvement to the article. SnowFire (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with others generally, although I think "two party system" is more than a theory; rather, it describes the essential political system in several countries, including the US. Agree the article needs more work.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

A disadvantage to a monochrome government

Recently a guy called Professor Nutt from the UK's advisory council on the misuse of drugs got fired for saying cannabis was less harmful than alcohol. 5 other people resigned in protest. Both of the two main parties 'agreed' with the sacking but neither had any objective justification into the reasons why (...subjective justification was clear though, they didn't like what the scientist was saying). At present, both parties are attempting to brush the incident under the carpet and still aren't responding sensibly to the advise given by the ACMD. When a monochrome government works together ... no other voices can be heard.--81.129.211.63 (talk) 03:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

"Westminster system" reference

Is the reference to a two-party system forming in Westminster system governments not inaccurate? Surely this is a description that refers exclusively to the ACTUAL Westminster parliament, as opposed to the system as a whole, since it reflects more the method of voting, than the parliamentary system. Ireland is essentially Westminster, but it is more rare NOT to have a "hung" parliament. - Estoy Aquí (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

What I don't understand fully yet

What I don't fully grasp is the logic of the US's two-party system. I read extensively. I've studied history and politics. I know the basics of the Constitution. I realize the basic "winner takes all" rule in presidential elections -- that is, if a majority of votes in one state, say New Jersey, goes to candidate X, then X wins ALL the electoral votes for that state. And this "winner takes all" rule encourages big parties, and two of them, and discourages third parties. But what I don't get is how the constitution's structure logically implies that there should be only two parties; like, having only two parties is not clearly spelled out in the Constitution. The Framers didn't even think that parties would have been a factor in politics and were surprised when they emerged within a few decades after the Constitution's ratification. If anybody has a good grasp on this, wondering what the answer is here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Since this article isn't about the US, this page may not be the best place to discuss the matter.   Will Beback  talk  03:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Revamped November 2010

Still could use more input from academic sources such as political science & such. I've been reading comments above on this talk page; generally interesting comments. I'm thinking there are basically two senses of the term "two-party system" -- (1) two parties only and others are excluded by structural or voting rules such as in the US; (2) two parties mostly, although other parties are not excluded and can participate, but two parties are the biggies and have the lion's share of the votes and power; and I think perhaps most of us agree that these are the two senses? Wondering what people here think is the most common sense of "two-party system"? --Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Parties aren't excluded in the US. In last week's election I saw several parties on the ballot.   Will Beback  talk  03:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes but rarely do third-party candidates win. Third parties aren't technically excluded, but in practice they are, it's difficult to get a third-party candidate on the ballot -- it requires many signatures or much $. The Constitution's Framers didn't know that parties would be powerful in the US, and they had no way of knowing it would work out to only two in practice; there were times when large parties split into two (pre Civil War). But generally there haven't been any strong independents, with occasional exceptions -- Ross Perot in 1992? won 20% of the vote, but lost the presidential election. Sometimes parties like the Green Party or Socialist Workers' Party are on the ballot, but the alignment of the ballots have been set up by the major parties to favor going straight down the line -- ie voting all Republican, or all Democrat. It's how the system evolved; I don't think anybody planned it this way. And I'd like to know what academics think about advantages vs disadvantages of two-party vs multi-party; I'll keep looking for sources here; just curious.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

"Marginalized" would be a better word than "excluded".   Will Beback  talk  01:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agree, thanks. Marginalized => better way to put it, yes. Hey, I'm running out of biographies of people to do. If you know anybody I can write about, that's notable, with references, please let me know or leave a message on my talk page. Maybe best to avoid political subjects since it causes so much battling even though it's great battling with you! sheesh! Take care, man.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

bermuda

"a particular style of parliamentary democracy based on the British model and found in many commonwealth countries such as Bermuda and New Zealand"

Bermuda isn't a usually classed as a country, it's an overseas territory of the UK. I find it rather strange it's used as an example here when there are plenty of other far better examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.248.87 (talk) 02:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done Removed Bermuda since it's not a separate country. Yes, thanks for catching this.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Russia

Russia is presented as an example of multi-party system in the article. However, I doubt it could be considered as such. From 1999 to 2011 the ruling party called "United Russia" possessed supermajority (i.e. more than 66%) in parliament; after 2011 parliamentary elections it still holds more than 50% parliamentary seats. Nearly all the elected or appointed officials, such as mayors, governors, ministers etc. are members of the "United Russia". Additionally, as the "United Russia" controls the whole voting process, there are numerous claims of the electoral fraud in favor of the "United Russia". IMHO this is clearly not an example of multi-party system. It is more of a single-party systems, which differs from the China system only in that opposite parties are formally allowed. Penartur (talk) 07:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Very touching, but it's still a multy-party system and there are no restrictions to the opposition parties, and they all have representation in the Russian Duma, as you can see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2011_Russian_State_Duma_election_results.svg

Having a majority doesn't turn you into a one party system. Franco-eisenhower (talk) 08:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

While de jure it is a multi-party system, de facto it is a single-party (or dominant-party if you prefer this term). If in a pure single-party system the leader decides that they should form some puppet party just for outward appearance (of course, such a party is not allowed to get enough votes), the system does not magically became multi-party.

From the article on a single-party system: Sometimes the term de facto single-party state is used to describe a dominant-party system where laws or practices prevent the opposition from legally getting power.

Practices prevent the opposition from legally getting power. Many opposition parties and polytics are not permitted to participate in elections for a made-up reasons; other are (for a reason) suspected in being United Russia's puppets. Despite the appropriate laws, the ruling party (and its leader) are getting much more air time during agitation period than all other parties combined. Despite the appropriate laws (and the lack of real opposition allowed to participate in the elections), there is a massive fraud during the elections. Despite the appropriate laws, the courts, judging the fraud cases, only listen to the polling stations workers (who are all, by some coincidence, either members of the "United Russia" or employed in the public sector), and do not consider testimonial evidences from the observers / voters nor physical evidences at all.

Opposition deputies (and there are not many of them) are losing their immunity solely by the votes of United Russia. During the recent discussion on the law restricting the rallies (according to the law, even going to a store with your friends could be considered a rally, and, because you didn't get the permission from the government on this specific rally, you're to be punished up to $50000 for it), all the deputies but "United Russia" were against it; in response, "United Russia", not caring a bit of the Duma's regulations, virtually forced the deputies to shut up. Of course, the law was passed the same day, solely by the votes of United Russia.

Hearing how there is a multi-party system in Russia is making me laugh. Of course, there are far more strict systems (Democratic People's Republic of Korea, for example), but Russia is not that far from these. All that remained is for Russian supreme pope to proclaim Putin to be the Jesus Christ reborn. Oh, and to rewrite the constitution, but that won't be a problem, United Russia already did it many times. Penartur (talk) 09:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

As a side note: according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:112USSenateStructure.svg , there are independent senators in US. If these senators were not independent but were rather of, say, green party - would this mean that USA is a multi-party state? I doubt that. Penartur (talk) 09:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree Russia is clearly a dominant-party system; whether it is technically a multi-party system or not is a hard line to draw (I agree with the observations above, generally); generally I see Russia as not being in the multi-party category. That is, putting Russia in the "multi-party" group seems false to my eye.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

My search using "multi-party system" and "single party system" crossed by Russia did not turn up anything that I considered to be definitive; but reporters for several prominent newspapers paint a picture of Russia clearly having a dominant party. One source said the Russian government was trying to "foster the illusion of democracy in Russia", while possibly creating two or three parties to help foster this illusion. Another source said Putin in 2012 was trying to create the "appearance of a two-party system". A corroborating source said the changes to the "existing party system" benefitted only one party: United Russia, the ruling party. My sense is the way to resolve this dispute is to keep looking for sources, or else indicate the controversy in the article text itself.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Penartur, I politely ask you not to miss the point with your own personal opinions. Tomwsulcer, let's suppose that those claims about Fair Russia are true. Still if this were the case, neither the Liberal Democratic party of Zhirinovsky, neither the Russian Communist Party are "creations" of United Russia to provide the appereance of a multy-party system, and we have already seen that they have enough representation in the parliament: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2011_Russian_State_Duma_election_results.svg

The sum of the deputies of LDP, the CPRF and FR together is 213, which is very close to the 238 deputies of UR. This is clearly not the typical parliament of a One-party system, where all the seats are monopolised by an only party or an only coalition and there are no opposition parties represented (for example China, East Germany, or the former Soviet Union). This is not even a Dominant-party system, where almost all the seats are monopolised by the government party and it's allies, and the opposition parties only have a small, if any, amount of seats (that's the case, for example, of the Syrian, the Burmese or the Egyptian pre-2012 parliament). Moreover, in Russia there are also more political parties, like Yabloko, or the conservative coalition Right Cause, and other, which also freely participate in elections, but they are not represented in the parliament because of the little popular vote they collect. I don't want to descend to the level of personal opinions, like others do, but I would honestly say that the claim of Russia beign a One-party, or even a Dominant-party system is a very ridiculous, dishonest and interested claim.

Regards from Argentina! Franco-eisenhower (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

To Franco-eisenhower: it does not matter how much seats do all the opposition parties combined have, be it 1% or 49%, as long as it is less than 50%. Prior to 2011 elections, United Russia possessed a supermajority (70% since 2007), and even now they've clearly shown that not only it doesn't matter how the opposite parties vote, but that it doesn't even matter what the opposite deputies say (during the recent discussions on some controversial laws such as law on rallies, United Russia deputies basically changed the rules and took away opposite deputies' right of speech). Falsifying the results only to 238 seats could probably serve the need of making Russia look not as undemocratic as e.g. Belarus, while still allowing for United Russia and Putin to conduct their own policies without thinking of everyone else's opinion. "We could do whatever we want with 238 seats as well as with 450 seats, so why won't we take only 238 seats to make the foreigners think we have a democracy here?"

Speaking of the other parties, "Right Cause" is virtually indisputable a Kremlin's toy; and Yabloko didn't pass the 7% barrier (though there are claims from the observers that, had the election commissions rewrote the reports a bit less hard, Yabloko would have their seats in Duma; BTW, Yabloko's leader, despite collecting the required 2 million of signatures in his support, was rejected from participating in the presidential elections for formal reasons). Additionally, there are plausible theories both Zhirinovsky (more likely) and Zyuganov (less likely), despite once being an opposition, are for a long time getting their payment from the ruling persons. Still, such speculations do not matter while United Russia has 238 seats (of 450). Penartur (talk) 08:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Clearly there are different parties in Russia. So I think technically can we agree that Russia is in a technical sense a "multi-party system". My problem, and I think Penartur's issue as well, however, is that merely including Russia in the "multi-party system" group -- and leaving it at that -- is somewhat problematic, considering how there is massive voter fraud in Russia, accusations that some (not all) political parties may be fronts (or controlled by, or puppets of) the dominant United Russia party. If there were multiple legitimate free parties in Russia, then why is there widespread dissatisfaction? Why has Putin been re-elected continually despite this massive dissatisfaction? And I think the situation is that there is a dominant party -- the United Russia party, which in many ways has rigged things in its favor, and numerous well-regarded sources point to this. So let's consider adding this line:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

While Russia is technically a multi-party system since opposition parties exist, claims of voter fraud, accusations that some opposition parties are fronts for the main party, and reports of coercion by the dominant party suggest that there is considerable doubt whether Russia is, in effect, a multi-party system.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that merely including Russia in the "multi-party system" group -- and leaving it at that -- is somewhat problematic, mainly, and more than anything else, because undoubtedly there are some claims (let's forget for our purpose here, the nature of these claims) that Russia is not a multi-party system or a proper democracy. But merely including Russia among the "One-party" or "Dominant-party" group is equally -or even more- problematic. That's why I also agree with leaving it in the "multi-party" group with the addition of the references that somewhat contradict it. However, I think that this would be quite a cumbersome stuff to add in an article whose subject is not this. I think it would be better just to remove any mention of Russia in this article, both in the "multi-party" examples or in the "one/dominant-party" examples, and instead make those changes in the articles that are about the topic. Do you agree? Thanks for your effort, Tom. Respect! Franco-eisenhower (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

To Franco-eisenhower: while you're right in that Russia does not fall under a strict formal single-party country definition, it is clearly a dominant-party system. It is indisputable that all the three branches of state are merged into the comprehensive whole under Putin's command; that election commissions (that should be independent) are completely controlled by the government; and that all the major TV channels (Channel One (Russia), Rossiya 1 and NTV (Russia)) are completely controlled by the government (while the official numbers are that 98% Russians are getting the information from the TV and about two thirds are trusting it). Given all this and the recent elections results, it is clear that there is no peaceful way for opposition to theoretically get some power in the government (unless the ruling party wants it to). I believe this is the main difference between the dominant-party and multiple-party systems (more than one party having the theoretical ability to get some power by peaceful way). Penartur (talk) 08:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds generally reasonable. I am divided whether it is best to keep Russia in here with a one-line addition like perhaps above, or whether to remove mention of Russia entirely. Wondering what Penartur thinks.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Penartur: "it does not matter how much seats do all the opposition parties combined have, be it 1% or 49%, as long as it is less than 50%" Brilliant! So, we have to assume that any government party having more than 49% of the seats in the Congress is a dominant-party system. Then, are dominant-party systems, for example, the italian and the Spanish Parliament (otherwise, tell me what's the difference with [this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2011_Russian_State_Duma_election_results.svg]).

You're making a logical mistake here. I didn't say that, if some party at some point of time has more than 50% of seats, it is a single-party system. I said that the argument "if opposition parties at some point of time have more than 40% (but less than 50%) of seats, it is not a single-party system" is wrong. And, by the way, the lower chamber of parliament is not the only source of power. Nearly all members of the higher chamber are United Russia members (formal or informal). Nearly all ministers are United Russia members. Nearly all local government chiefs (including mayors and governors) are United Russia members. And last, but not least, nearly all members of election commissions (those who count votes) are United Russia members. Penartur (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

And, on the media in Russia, there are also many opposition newspapers, for example, all of the oligarch Berezovsky Group (newsapers: Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Kommersant, Moskovskaya Komsomolka, Novye Izvestia, Svezhiy Nomer; magazines: Avtopilot, Vlast', Den'gi, Domovoy, Ogoniok; radio station: Nashe Radio; TV companies: [part of] Channel One, MNVK), or Novaya Gazeta (which is owned by Gorbachev). And according to Daniel Treisman, even the channels owned by the state, do, however, provide large amounts of free airtime to all opposition election candidates, as required by law.

The point is that the majority of the population are only getting information from the three major channels I've mentioned. As for the newspapers you've mentioned: you will have a hard time searching e.g. for Nezavisimaya Gazeta in Novosibirsk or Yekaterinburg (3rd and 4th cities in Russia by the population size), not to mention smaller towns. Such papers are usually only being sold in Moscow and St.Petersburg.

You're right in that the three major TV channels are giving equal (though "large" is questionable) free airtime to all election candidates as required by law. The problem is that the law could be easily exploited. As you probably know, prior to being elected on his 3rd term, Putin served as a prime-minister. And, of course, as a prime-minister he got a huge amount of airtime just to let people know how the prime-minister works. Thus he got a way more airtime than all the opposition candidates combined. It's like, you know, all the day the Putin is everywhere, in the news, in the analytic programs, in the children shows; and sometime (not in the prime-time, of course) there some debates between the opposition candidates (Putin is so almighty that he doesn't even need to participate in these). Penartur (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Opposition parties in Russia will get some power when people vote them. I know there are some people who don't like to loose, but these are the rules of democracy. The votes of Putin have descended since the last election, that proves that it's possible to defeat Putin, just have to make a better try. Franco-eisenhower (talk) 13:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, and opposition candidates in Belarus and Turkmenistan will also get some power when people vote them. It is just some people who don't like to lose and to obey the rules of democracy; the majority likes Putin, Lukashenko, Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow etc. I would also mention the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, but, unfortunately, for some reason, Kim Jhong-Il disliked the idea of elections (though I'm sure he would get 99.9%, outperforming Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow's achievement, had they occured). Penartur (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Try not to intercalate your answers everywhere, you are making a total mess. Just make your comment below the last comment made. I think we are just loosing our time here. I support removing any mention of Russia in this article. Franco-eisenhower (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

NYT Comment, reliable source?

Is the source on US being a two-party system (link) reliable? It refers to a comment on journalist Eric Etheridge's blog (or so it seems to be) written by Asger Deleith. From the layout on the page and the message "Comments are no longer being accepted" I assume that this is a personal comment that contains a personal opinion by a person for whom no credentials are to be found. This violates Wikipedia:SOURCES#Reliable_sources, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thekaas (talk • contribs) 12:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

You're right. Thanks for catching. But the US is a two-party system; no doubt about that.  Done--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Ballot access

In the US, rules make it difficult for outsiders to get on the ballot. The system has become well entrenched, like try getting on the ballot if you're not a Republican or Democrat -- very hard. Rules about minimum numbers of signatures etc. But the overall push for 2 parties comes from the structure itself; if only one winner takes all, then voters learn -- fast -- not to "waste their votes" on a 3rd party type. Its well conditioned over many years, and unfortunately, it leads to problems.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I partially deleted your latest lede edit for a couple of reasons. First, the lede should focus on briefly describing what a two party system is. It only does that vaguely, even admitting that there is no precise definition for the term, and since there are multiple causes for the various types of two party systems there's no need to tack a couple of selectively chosen specific causes onto the end. Facts and speculation about causes can come later in the article.

Second, much of the deleted material wasn't supported by the sources and was misleading. The segment immediately followed the US being cited as an example of a two party system, and implied that third parties weren't prominent in part because they were being proactively excluded from ballots. Third parties appear on US ballots all the time, even at the national level. The WP source article on Americans Elect says the group "failed" to nominate a candidate because no one reached the 10k votes required in accordance with their own rules, not because they were barred from ballots (indeed it indicated they had significant success getting on ballots). In other words they failed due to lack of appeal.

The sentence's other source is a 1990s article about a SCOTUS verdict upholding a state's right to restrict so called "fusion" (piggybacking) balloting, not preventing parties from appearing on the ballot. The law in question just said that parties (any parties, not just minor ones) aren't allowed to appear on a ballot if their "nominee" is already on it representing a different party. While being prevented from riding on a prominent candidate's coattails might slightly impact a minor party's exposure, that's a niche issue that doesn't warrant being featured in the lede, and the deleted text was written more broadly than that.

It also doesn't help that the text started off with "Two-party systems are built...", possibly giving the reader the impression that the fundamental US two party dynamic was intentionally constructed, when it actually accidentally arose from the system created by founding fathers who eschewed parties generally in any number. This exposition belongs lower on the page, but even there it should be worded differently.

I kept the second sentence, but I changed "any office" to a more cautious "major national office", since the source just focuses on presidential races, and since it's not at all unheard of for minor party or independent candidates to win at the local or state level (Vermont Socialist Bernie Sanders even sits in the US Senate). Plus the two party system itself, being unofficial, has broken down at times in American history. I kept your first WP source and moved it to reinforce the above clause about remote chances. Someone might come along and still think the sourcing is shaky, but the sentence's current text is uncontroversial enough that I at least would be fine with no sources. I did delete the in-reference quote since it was cut off at a point that falsely implied the group had failed in its mission to get on ballots.

As for whether a two party system is a "problem", since you gave your own opinion I'll say that such a system encourages moderation (which may or may not be good, depending on how rapidly one wants to depart from the founding principles), and reduces the chances of an extreme party suddenly gaining significant power in an aberrational burst (see Nazi Germany), but that the real political differences are overblown. In two party systems the parties have bigger tents and plenty of internal and cross party (usually issue specific) coalition building goes on. The parties themselves are broad coalitions. The "R" and "D" are just brands; they're a symptom of a candidate or group's interests more than a cause. Operatives and politicians are sometimes driven into certain positions based on party affiliation but that's also true in nations with three or four major parties (in parliamentary systems legislators typically march in extreme partisan lockstep), and for that matter even among propagandists in movements that aren't explicitly electoral. Plus there are diverse choices in the US primaries. National level US general campaigns are more like the run off elections that officially exist in many other countries and some US states. The "R"/"D" dichotomy doesn't prevent countless opinions on any given issue from being heard. In fact the article should probably have more commentary on the big tent, relatively flexible nature of the American style two party system than it does, and maybe something contrasting the needs of a continent sized nation of over 300 million with those of countries that are more equivalent to small US states. I don't have time to look for sources right now but they should be as easy for interested parties who follow this page to find as the opinions from random people like that HuffPo guy I've never heard of that currently pepper the article for some reason. VictorD7 (talk) 04:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. Generally I agree with the points above; some of the references before were not ideal. I agree there are pluses and minuses for the two-party system. I agree about built being misleading and that the two-party system (and parties) essentially arose almost like a Second Constitution, without the Framers really realizing what they had created. Still, I think the constitutional arrangement, winner-takes-all voting approach is a driving variable at the heart of a two-party system, which deserves to be put in the lede paragraph, and it pushes other factors such as ballot restrictions (which possibly should not be in the lede para). I'm not sure I agree about trying to distinguish national officials from local ones; my sense is the two-party arrangement is heartily entrenched at all levels of government, with few exceptions. In my little town, there have only been Republicans or Democrats elected -- no independents -- and my exploration of politics suggests the two-party arrangement is deeply imbued in the US. Generally I will try to add more references including more stuff about the positives of the two-party arrangement, although my personal viewpoint is that the two-party arrangement in the US is only one of a series of serious flaws in American governance, but I try to keep my views out of wikipedia.--12:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I can live with the "winner takes all" mention since it's the most salient cause, but I moved that sentence back up to where the cause sentence had been previously since I think the paragraph flows better that way. I also deleted the "obstacle" clause because it seemed frivolous given that obstacles are inherently implied by the existence of a two party system (one, the winner takes all set up, already being explicitly mentioned), and because the separate "obstacles" mention could lead readers to believe that laws had been established proactively excluding third parties (it's not the most neutral possible wording). However, I added "various factors" to the cause sentence, indicating that there are obstacles to third party prominence aside from the winner takes all rules. Regarding offices, I mostly agree with you but I've seen many minor offices where candidates have no party affiliation and one of your sources (I'd have to go back to check to see which one) observed that third party candidates have often won at the state and local level, so it'd be prudent to opt for qualified language over a categorical statement, keeping in mind that the sentence's current wording focusing on the highest offices isn't saying that there isn't also a largely two-party dynamic at lower levels (something already said earlier in the text). I'm not sure all the sources are necessary for those sentences, but I left them all in. I will say that you found some good ones (not as big on a couple; Ashlie(sp? don't recall) doesn't seem to understand the Constitution and Eric the "former reporter" turned "blogger" warped his history some; but most of them are solid and educational), and I appreciate your efforts and commitment to improve this page's quality. PS - Here's an interesting recent story on Nigerians wanting to transition from a multi-party to two-party system. VictorD7 (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Article is getting better. I like your choices. You have a discerning intellect. I remember one of those Teaching Company courses by a professor named Cook about Tocqueville (years ago) something about how the US was like a baseball stadium. There was a lot of activity within the stadium, but there were essentially two teams, like, you had to belong to one of those two teams to play, similar to your sentiments about the big tent approach of the parties. It can seem repressive to people who think outside the system, that is, there is more to America than what happens inside the ballpark, but these views generally don't get any press, no recognition, except to the extent that they can try to fit into one of the two parties. It's like majority-think -- in the US you've got to think mainstream or else nobody listens.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. As for the system stuff, I'll just say that parties aren't necessarily synonymous with view points, and that America probably has a greater array of voices heard by someone (political and non political) than any country on earth. Even hearing people attacking the two-party system has become cliche since it's so common. It's an extremely noisy baseball stadium, and the analogy is imperfect because the parties hardly function like well oiled teams. Socialists, libertarians, and others have had enormous impact on major party positions, as have single issue crusaders. If someone's pet views aren't represented more by the major parties, it's probably just because they're not shared by enough other people. Is the current system perfect? No, I have all sorts of issues with it. But I'd caution people to take a closer look at so called "multi-party" nations and parliamentary systems generally before leaping across to see if the grass is greener. VictorD7 (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I used to think somewhat like you do but experience has taught me otherwise. So I doubt there is a "greater array of voices ... than any country on earth", and your noisy stadium hypothesis I disagree with as well. Any view outside the mainstream is marginalized; I doubt socialists and libertarians have had "enormous impact" on the major parties like you suggest (although Tea Party radicals have tilted the Republicans more to the right). Generally, to varying extents, these viewpoints are excluded from the public debate; when communism was seen as viable, people in the US trying to advocate for those positions were shunned, excluded, fired, sometimes jailed. If communists had been allowed to express their concerns in public bodies such as the US Congress or even in mainstream newspapers, then people could have thought about the arguments more, and made smarter choices overall, that is, while I disagree with the ideology of communism, I believe it would have been helpful overall for its proponents to have been allowed to speak if only to figure out what we believe. The most libertarians can do is come up with ideas, or try to challenge staid ideas within the Republican party -- they can not elect legislators, they lack power, they can not have an impact. There is a (mostly nonpartisan) program called FairTax which is a highly sensible alternative to the 80,000+ page US tax code which would streamline the US economy, simplify taxes, but its advocates struggle to get an audience; I fail to see any serious debate in Congress about it, despite the merits of the proposal. Third party candidates are almost always excluded from presidential debates. Last ones I remember were Ralph Nader and Ross Perot -- years back. Differing views are vital; they stimulate debate and thinking; it helps the decision-making process; without them, the stadium-bound folks can turn into yes-men of each other and engage in groupthink. How many parties are there? Only two, and they hug the center.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

As a result of exclusions, Congress is a rather dull institution, with perhaps only 10% (ten percent) of the public thinking that it is doing a competent job. It is in sharp contrast to the British parliament which has lively 30-minute debates with the party heads having to defend programs and respond to challenges. The US Congress is like an old folks home. It is s supposed to be the public's voice.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Still, America is doing okay -- the economy continues to grow, people have jobs, there are substantial legal protections, and the habits of virtue (hard work, obeying the law, learning, etc) have kept the nation on a good course. There have been arguments floated that the two-party system serves a positive function of economic stability, by excluding extraneous views, by subtly manhandling the radicals away from podiums, focusing the nation on commerce, away from the messiness of politics, and only permitting gradual changes (which can be good for economic stability -- what business likes, no radical shifts in rules.) The problem comes when the external world changes substantially (eg terrorism; new powers rising; global environmental issues; demographic problems such as a greying population and its impact on social security), requiring the nation to adapt, and in such situations, government has trouble adjusting to these changes because of problems with governance. I see America like a giant cruise ship and it is fine provided that it does not have to steer around obstacles; being alone, by itself in the water, separated by two oceans, it has not been confronted with serious challenges very often.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree because, as bad as it is, America does have the most diverse media (broadly defined) in the world, mostly unencumbered by a state leviathan (e.g. the leftist BBC) crowding out private voices, with heavy population participation on the internet, in Talk Radio, in the entertainment industry, in a robust book writing industry, etc.. You claim ideas aren't being heard, giving the example of the Fair Tax, but "Fair Tax" is virtually a household term. It's even been discussed countless times in televised debates (especially Republican primary debates), though neither they nor Congressional debates come close to composing the entirety of "public debate". Just because a policy you like hasn't been implemented doesn't mean its mention is being suppressed. There's far more conversation about things like the Fair Tax or going to a single payer healthcare system in America than there is of...say...abolishing the NHS in Britain, or seriously rolling back the welfare state in a libertarian direction. Even the Conservative party there is generally pro welfare state, raised capital gains taxes recently (to disastrously counterproductive effect, btw), and is relatively socially liberal. There's not much serious talk about repealing strict gun control laws or scrapping the BBC (arguably a self fulfilling phenomenon, given its prominence in shaping people's views). Remember what I said about assuming the grass is greener. It's true that multi-party states are more prone to extremism, but actual power grabbing and policy implementation is a different issue than the discussion of ideas in society. Don't conflate the two. As the Supreme Court decision pointed out in the aforementioned case, the ballot isn't the place for advertising.

The socialist movement and its adherents like Upton Sinclair had an enormous impact on the two major parties (especially the Democrats) in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. Sinclair's sensationalistic propaganda led to the initiation of heavy handed government regulation of food and drugs that persists to this day. The Socialist Party itself, which routinely ran presidential candidate Eugene Debs, was one of the most successful third parties of all time. If you go back and read its platforms you'll find that many of its positions (e.g. minimum wage, progressive income tax, social insurance) were adopted by one or both major parties and have long since become law. I'm not sure why you feel communism was simultaneously thought to be viable and derided (presumably there were conflicting views involved, with the anti-communists being right), but, contrary to the myth of "McCarthyism", as we now know from the historical record the biggest problem with the early and mid 20th Century is that Americans weren't paranoid enough about Soviet infiltration or communist sympathies. Hell, the co-founder of the House Un-American Affairs Committee, Samuel Dickstein (D-NY), was a Soviet Agent who used the entity to chase "fascist" ghosts on Wall Street and elsewhere in the 1930s in an attempt to divert blame from FDR for the lousy economy. That's somewhat off topic, but it would be silly to believe that communism didn't get a fair shake in the US. Despite the ideology being totally antithetical to traditional American culture and the nation's founding principles, influential men like future FDR advisor Rex Tugwell and economist Stuart Chase (who would later coin the term “New Deal”) spoke glowingly of the Soviet Union in the 1920s and openly advocated “remaking” the US in a similar way. To the extent communism in general and the USSR in particular became less popular later, it was driven by events and the American culture’s inherent resistance to the ideology, not by the two-party system, which had been in effect in the 1920s, 30s, and early 40s too.

Even as Nixon proclaimed “we are all Keynesians”, created racial affirmative action, and enacted price and wage controls, libertarian dissatisfaction with the Republican establishment was leading to an increasingly active grass roots conservative movement that pulled the party back in its direction. Milton Friedman, a libertarian observer, ultimately saw his once fringe ideas on an array of topics from an all-volunteer military to a monetarist fed policy embraced by the party establishment. Supply-siders dominated the Reagan administration, 70s “Détente” was replaced by a “rollback” foreign policy, and pro-life activists at least found their views represented in the party’s platform. Of course, while there is an underlying two-party dynamic, a party can be completely replaced, as the Republicans supplanted the Whigs when the latter moved too slowly on the slavery issue. Short of that, clearly major parties respond to ideas if they gain enough public traction (intensity, as well as widespread approval). To the extent some ideas don’t receive enough coverage, that’s due more to a biased mainstream media than the two-party system. After all, look how quickly the "gay marriage" issue has swept the Democratic Party, causing the party leaders' views to "evolve" over a couple of years, simply because a tiny core constituency has a strong foothold in the media/entertainment industry, as opposed to...say...polygamists, who have a much stronger biological and historical case than gay marriage advocates but a very different settlement pattern that places them well outside Hollywood and New York. That has nothing to do with a two-party system. I do agree that America is like a great ship, due to its sheer size as much as its system, but the built in systemic moderation goes beyond the two-party system, and includes more intentional design components like checks and balances, constitutionalism, etc.. Any attempt to alter all that and turn the US into a speedboat should be prefaced by very serious consideration of all the potential consequences. VictorD7 (talk) 02:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

(undent) Interesting perspective. Btw I wonder if the current article should include the view that the two-party system in the U.S. was not specifically chosen by the Framers, who were not really considering how the party system would play out in the new arrangement. Also, perhaps some history of the two-party model in the US could be worthy of inclusion, with the general idea being there were more parties initially, but as time progressed, the two-party arrangement became more entrenched, with perhaps major realignments happening around the Civil War (4 parties at the time of the election of Lincoln 1860), and since then, third-party movements (which did, as you point out, influence the two dominant parties) mostly based on powerful charismatic individuals.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

What I am not sure I get about your views is whether you see a linkage between political leanings and system structure, between, say, right-leaning views and the two-party system. Put another way, do you think if the US went to a multiparty system, it might favor left-leaning views? I wasn't sure if I got this from your previous comments. My thinking at present is that the left-right battling and the two-party versus multiparty question are essentially separate issues. I do not see a two-party as favoring the right or a multiparty system as favoring the left. I see left-right battling as old as civilization itself, neither one being right or wrong, both having valid philosophical arguments underpinning them. For me, what is cool about the American experiment is how the left and right perspectives shift, peacefully, fairly regularly every generation or so, like a person walking: left foot, right foot, changing every 30 years or so in general directions, and I see this as healthy since it balances the needs of diverse groups.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

My problem with the two-party arrangement is more fundamental, more basic. I am doing a course on decision-making, taught by a business professor, who argues that diversity is key—having multiple diverse viewpoints when gathering information and deciding—with constructive debate to achieve consensus, that is, a shared commitment to going with what the group decides regardless of whether one supports the particular choice (much like Wikipedia). Many views are put forth; challenges made; ideas tested and scrutinized; votes counted. When the process is fair, the best ideas tend to win out. That is how a democracy should work: open discussion, alternative viewpoints, decision-making, review, that is, an ongoing process of intelligent decision-making. My problem with the two-party model is that voices of both right and left are excluded from Congress. There are hardly any libertarians or communists in it. Of course Republicans and Democrats can listen outside of Congress to the views as you point out, but in a real sense, where it counts—with votes in Congress—these views are excluded, and as I see it, this stymies decision-making.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Case in point: communists were excluded from Congress when there were more adherents during the early and mid 20th century. The nation exhibited a form of collective paranoia about communism; Red Scares happened (after WW1, also during the McCarthy years), people were arrested, intimidated by firings, and so forth. Later, what most know now, is that communism is a failed ideology, an unworkable arrangement which brought much grief to those nations that tried to do it. My point is that the democratic process about this issue in the US broke down, partially because of the exclusion of communist voices in government because of the two-party system, because extreme left-leaning views were not permitted to be aired, criticized, studied. If those views could have entered the debate, then people would more quickly have seen how flawed they were. Congresspersons did not get to test them. It was all hush hush. The ideas were scary. They should not have been scary. This led to further, sometimes serious mistakes in areas such as foreign policy, leading to paranoiac assumptions such as the Domino Theory, which led to the disastrous and unnecessary Vietnam War – 58,000 lives lost, billions wasted. There is a further problem here that might be mentioned as one of the downsides of the two-party system that the article does not mention: when there are only two parties, the process is seen as less legitimate as one in which all views, left and right, extreme and mainstream, get a chance in the discussion, to argue, to hash out policies, to vote. The two-party system lacks the same legitimacy of a multiparty system because of the exclusion of parties, of voices, of sometimes extreme views. It is less fair than a multiparty system. It is, in this sense, undemocratic.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

One thing about media and bias. I used to think the media leaned to the left until I came across many left-leaning thinkers complaining that the media was biased towards the center. This was puzzling to me. The best I can resolve this is a sense that the media does have a tendency to choose altruistic-based stories, emphasizing unselfishness, do-gooderism, because (in part) it is unusual and often sells newspapers. So, a story about a person founding an organization to serve the homeless will get greater press than a businessperson who (selfishly) builds a multimillion dollar corporation, even though the businessperson acting from $ motives may benefit society to a much greater degree by providing jobs, creating opportunities and such. In the media, however, a factor mitigating against the choice-of-story bias is a bias towards procedural and editorial fairness – a concern for facts, sources, rational reasoning. So, there may be more stories about left-leaning do-gooder types but the reports are based on facts and rational reasoning, and the result is (in my view) media hug the center, politically, with perhaps a tad of leaning to the left.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree in broad concept with your article proposals, though it wasn't just charismatic individuals who influenced the third parties, but movements and ideas as I evidenced. I'd add mentioning the primary process to your list for article expansion. Your comments about decision making actually sound a lot like the primary process, where there's a diverse array of candidates for voters to choose from before a party selects one and moves forward together into the general campaign. We may disagree on whether it would be valuable to have more of these fringe voices, like communists, anarchists, or maybe Black Panthers or KKK members, actually sitting in office. Again, there's a difference between ideas getting a hearing in society at large and actual policy making. Most people agree that the American system (due to constitutionalism and other factors I mentioned, not just the two-party dynamic) has a more moderating effect on the latter than in some other countries. But while America is a great ship on government policy it has always been a speed boat on innovation and potential societal changes; a source of many of the modern world's ideas in areas from science to business to culture to politics.

I wasn't commenting on the inherent left/right tilt of a multi-party system in my last post, though, as some of the sources you added detail, analyses show that multi-party systems have more government spending as a percentage of GDP and lower economic growth than two party nations. My historical view differs from yours in various ways. For one thing I prefer not to speak in a continuous "left"/"right" model stretching back over the millennia. While I'll sometimes describe something in...say...the French Revolution or even ancient Rome as "leftist", those terms mean so many different things in different historical/national contexts that I usually opt for more specific language. The 19th Century partisan US dynamic, for example, wasn't left/right at all as people today would understand it, though occasionally a pundit will try to pretend otherwise. The issues were far different.

I already indicated that I reject your premise about "paranoia" over communism and cited specific examples of men who openly praised the Soviet model having influence on US policy. Indeed Paul Samuelson, America's most prominent 20th Century Keynesian economist, continued to praise the Soviet Union for decades, stating as late as 1989 in his influential university textbook Economics that "The Soviet economy is proof that, contrary to what many skeptics had earlier believed, a socialist command economy can function and even thrive." Whoops. The whole "Red Scare" thing you vaguely allude to is largely an overblown popular myth created by liberals over the second half of the 20th Century. To the extent a few communists lost their jobs it was almost invariably because they had been working in sensitive government posts handling national security issues at a time when the nation and its allies were under strategic assault by hostile communist powers, and, as I showed, not enough lost their jobs. It wasn't illegal to simply be a communist, and there certainly wasn't anything like the rounding up of people deemed security risks experienced on a mass scale by Americans of Japanese and German descent during WW2 (also not a function of the two party system). Just because communism was unpopular in the US doesn't mean it didn't get a hearing. Indeed even many of the low brow criticisms of socialism were essentially clear, simple, rational, and insightful versions of more high brow Hayekian style critiques.

Keep in mind that it's America where liberties like Free Speech are constitutionally enshrined, while in many European nations political views deemed "offensive" (like questioning the Holocaust) are outright illegal. A few years ago Canada's Human Rights Commission investigated and condemned pundit and author Mark Steyn for supposedly insulting Islam, Steyn only escaping serious legal sanction thanks to a jurisdictional technicality "discovered" by the quasi-judicial body as an excuse to punt the case after it decided it didn't like the media spotlight accompanied by the high profile Steyn. Speedboat government.

I also disagree with you about the Cold War, as there was a great deal to fear from communist expansion (ask Eastern Europeans, Chinese refugees, Vietnamese boat people fleeing the NVA, Koreans, Cubans, Grenadians, etc.), and even the domino theory (see Cambodia; though by delaying communist expansion US action in Vietnam may have limited it), with a more aggressive foreign policy in the 1980s playing a huge role in collapsing the communist bloc and freeing hundreds of millions, but that's really getting off topic.

The media/entertainment industry has a very strong, entrenched leftist bias, particularly as viewed on the American spectrum. Multiple studies have conclusively demonstrated that editors and reporters are overwhelmingly left of center, and this clearly shows through in slanted news coverage, bias through omission, demonizing conservatives, etc., and has for several decades. There's absolutely no reasonable question about this. NBC will send undercover people in "Muslim" dress along with hidden cameras to NASCAR events in the futile hope of sparking "racist" responses, while ignoring actual bigotry common at modern NAACP meetings or from certain sitting Democratic Congressmen. Any leftists babbling about supposed right wing bias either don't know what they're talking about (probably very young or at least grossly uninformed), are delusional, are dishonest, or are so fringe that they see the Democratic party as far too conservative for their taste. I've even known socialists who acknowledge the media slants left, particularly if they place their own views honestly on the American spectrum. In movies murderers are likely businessmen, though such people commit an infinitesimal percentage of real life murders. Films like Elysium, The Hunger Games, District 9, and countless others seek to focus popular sentiment on class inequality or other leftist memes rather than economic growth, entrepreneurialism, the dangers of government regulatory interference, or the negative consequences of a bloated welfare state. Propaganda flicks like the Day After Tomorrow outright accuse conservative policies of destroying the world. White Christians are typically portrayed, if at all, as deranged, threatening, or unsympathetic in some way. Conservative characters are imbued with absurd, unrealistic dialogue that erects straw man arguments and clouds discourse. Conspiracy theories are encouraged, with national security threats being at least almost as likely to come from within (CIA/US military elements being the villains in the Bourne franchise and countless other movies) as without. Cold War themed movies often emphasized a supposed moral equivalence between the US and an aggressive, mass murderous, totalitarian bloc. Etc.. That's without even getting into the unhealthy intolerance and abusively polemic nature of the modern, almost totally leftist dominated university system.

But the issue of media/academic bias, while more pertinent to airing diverse ideas than electoral rules, isn't a function of the two-party system, and is pervasive in Europe and the British Commonwealth as well. I suppose our fundamental disagreements are about the degree to which party labels are synonymous with specific policy proposals, the scope of national discourse beyond Capitol Hill and general election campaigns, and the potential value of increasing the number of relevant parties from two to a still fairly exclusive three or four. VictorD7 (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

South Korea

Note: comment copied from my talk page -- The National Assembly of South Korea regularly elects more than two parties but only two parties (Saenuri Party and Democratic Party) have sufficient influence about South Korean politics. Other parties do not have sufficient influence about South Korean politics and only have 11 seats in the National Assembly. So South Korea has a two-party system. --117.53.77.30 (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Many sources indicate South Korea has a multi-party system. Parties other than the top two win seats in the legislature; in contrast, to be a two-party system, candidates from other parties do not win any seats in the legislature, generally, and since this does not happen in South Korea, sources suggest it is a multi-party system. Even the first line of the wikipedia article List of political parties in South Korea says it is a multi-party system.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

User 117.53.77.30: your definition of two-party system is too broad. If simply having 1st and 2nd largest parties qualifies, then many more countries should be added, and the term loses its meaning.

Assuming that you're treating multi-party and two-party as distinct systems, a proper two-party politics is when the twin dominant parties and the political structure are actually hampering multiparty pluralism. Like winner-take-all and single-member plurality elections that make it very unlikely for third parties in the United States to get a single member in Congress. And many times, voters and officials act as if other parties do not exist. This happens even among independents like Bernie Sanders.

Smaller parties in South Korea, on the other hand, do get attention and have real political support from voters that elect them. Did you see how much of a ruckus Lee Seok-ki made a month ago? Abstractematics (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

What about the UK? In which, the Liberal Democrats have 55 seats in the House of Commons and 89 seats in the House of Lords, but the UK is an important example of two party system.--117.53.77.30 (talk) 05:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

As the article points out, the term "two-party system" is imprecise. It can mean different things to different people. I doubt there is a consensus view among experts (political scientists) about what it means. If the term is strictly defined (ie only two parties which can elect representatives, such as US, Malta) then the UK is really a multi-party system since parties other than the top two can get their representatives in Parliament. However, some consider the UK as a two-party system because the two largest parties exert more influence than their numbers would suggest, that is, the top two parties get, say, 80% of the vote, but 90% of the seats. On that basis, one could argue possibly that it is a two-party system, on the basis of control or perceived power. If the situation is similar in South Korea, that is, two parties exerting substantial control or having power beyond their vote percentages, then maybe we could make a case that SK was two-party on that basis, similar to the UK. Still, I see there is a big difference between US-style two party systems (a Congress of almost all Republicans and Democrats; third parties unable to elect representatives at any level of govt) versus UK-style or SK-style parliamentary systems, in which new parties can come along and win seats in the legislature -- personally, my sense is both UK and SK are multi-party systems, but I realize there are those who consider them both two-party.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

History section

A history section for the background of how the two-party political system emerged. I don't see how that is off topic, and the references are all to reputable sites and books.Noodleki (talk) 22:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

It was well written but my concerns were that it focused mostly on Great Britain which is not squarely in the "two-party system" camp, since there are more than two parties represented in the British Parliament; further, it focused on early periods of particular parties in the UK and somewhat in the US, with not much focus on why this happened. The sources were hard to check -- a link to a book site, etc. My sense it there could be some original research involved. I did not believe the first sentence -- The two-party system began with the division in English politics at the time of the Civil War and Glorious Revolution in the late 17th century; the first five references in the addition were hard to check since they lacked inline citations. Two paragraphs were unreferenced. Generally the content did not address, specifically, the two party system -- rather, it was about historical developments regarding various political parties, their ideologies and such. The Kelley book had a link only to the book on Google; I could not check what specific passages were mentioned. There is a link to a blog -- Jesse Norman. Another "reference" was a link to a term paper. The reference about the book about Gladstone and Disraeli -- just a link to a book on Google. Washington's last address is somewhat of a primary source. I did not see a mention to the Miniccuci (sp) source mentioning the word "party". The Chambers book might be somewhat useful, but again it is hard to check. This is a lot of material, none of which really focuses on what this article is about -- the Two-party system, but it is well written and perhaps could be added somewhere else in Wikipedia, such as a history of political parties in the UK and US.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I personally think the added content could have a place in the article, if it de-emphasized UK and US and it was trimmed down in length. It could focus on history of the development of two-party politics in various countries, rather than on the concept of two-party system. Though, maybe it's better to intermingle with the examples section. Abstractematics (talk) 00:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I would consent to content with checkable references with the words "two party system" or a close variant fairly prominent in the reference, which adds to knowledge about what a two party system is. My problem with the content added before was the subject was about the history of different parties, about how they formed, who led them, what they stood for, and such -- for me, this is really a separate subject entirely. I see the two-party system subject as a structural issue in political science, a result of constitutional choices with specific voting arrangements being at the core of what happens, and that the history of political parties as a tangent here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

There's no original research at all, and the reason why UK is featured is because that's where the first two party system developed. See here and the history, here. There's also a book written on it - Emergence Of The British Two-Party System 1760-1832, and a historiography list on page 27 of the book Sources and Debates in Modern British History: 1714 to the Present dealing with the issue. I'm open to trimming the section of details of particular parties, although I think it's important as it provides background for understanding what these parties were arguing about.Noodleki (talk) 12:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The concept of original research can take time to learn; from my own experience at Wikipedia, I did not get it for perhaps the first year or two of my contributions until an admin took time out to really explain it to me. I had added an article on a topic with many references, making point after point, and I pointed to the references to indicate that it was not my research, but those of others. Problem was, the entire synthesis was my synthesis, that is, by putting all these referenced non-OR facts together, I was indeed creating original research; once I understood this, I got why my article had to be deleted. And that is what is going on with the addition. The first sentence of the addition is this: The two-party system began with the division in English politics at the time of the Civil War and Glorious Revolution in the late 17th century -- but we have one writer here, who sees the two-party system using the more open sense of the term (ie TPS => two dominant parties, but other parties can elect members, and form coalitions, etc) rather than the American sense of the term (ie TPS => only two parties really elect representatives, others don't get seats in legislature), and then this writer argues that the British TPS began in the late 17th century. The next line: The Whigs supported Protestant constitutional monarchy against absolute rule and the Tories, originating in the Royalist (or "Cavalier") faction of the English Civil War, were conservative royalist supporters of a strong monarchy as a counterbalance to the republican tendencies of Parliament -- this may be true, but how is this relevant to the TPS? Isn't this about the history of parties in Britain, or the history of the Whig Party there? Let's go on: The Whigs were the dominant political faction for most of the first half of the 18th century; they supported the Hanoverian succession of 1715 against the Jacobite supporters of the deposed Roman Catholic Stuart dynasty and were able to purge Tory politicians from important government positions after the failed Jacobite rising of 1715. The leader of the Whigs was Robert Walpole, who maintained control of the government in the period 1721–1742; his protégé was Henry Pelham (1743–54) -- probably true, somewhat interesting, but how is this relevant to TPS? The original research is that the topic TPS includes a history of political parties in the UK. I do not see how this information is helpful to understanding TPS.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Next, about the question of what is a two-party system (TPS). Maybe the lede para should be redone to mention both senses of the term -- the stricter sense (ie only 2 parties get reps into legislature) versus the looser sense (ie 2 dominant parties but others get reps into legislature), and maybe say that both terms have been used.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

About the sources here and here -- what are they? It looks like a professors website. I do not see an author's name, a date, any evidence of it being a reliable source.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I provided you with an entire book on the subject and a link to a list of scholarly works on precisely this issue, see also Party Ideology and Popular Politics at the Accession of George III p. 39 and Peers, Politics and Power: House of Lords, 1603-1911 p. 76. This isn't a mysterious theory that I dreamed up, it is a generally established fact that the two party system of government originated with the Whigs and Tories. There's no controversy apart from debate on how clear cut party divisions were in the 18th century. As I said before, I am willing to trim some of the detail, but it is clearly important to explain what the basic differences between the two parties were. I don't understand what you're saying about differences in definition. There are plenty of 3rd parties in the US as well as the UK - a tps is just a system dominated by two large parties.Noodleki (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The two google book references are about the history of party politics in the UK. I did not see any mention of "two party system" or analysis that the UK had a two-party system, what this meant, when it happened, etc. I looked on page 76 of the second book -- I did not see anything related to this topic.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 04:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

What about the title The Emergence Of The British Two-Party System 1760-1832" is causing difficulty? In "Peers, Politics and Power" TPS is clearly mentioned on 3rd para on p.77 and in " Party Ideology and Popular Politics" the whole chapter, if you had read it, is about the degree to which a TPS was formally in place, with a range of interpretation from Namier to Trevelyan on the subject. Its also arithmetic; Whig (1) + Tory (1) = 2 Parties.Noodleki (talk) 16:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you send a link? I tried searching but what I found was hidden behind paywalls. I think we could add something along these lines; my concern is several pages of text which to me are really about the history of political parties in the UK. Please keep in mind about differing senses of the term "two party system". In the UK, more than 2 parties are feasible electorally, but since two are seen as dominant, it was called TPS. At least we would have to qualify it, saying the second sense of TPS (>2 parties but 2 dominant) may have originated in Britain with Whigs and Tories. For someone with the US-sense (only 2 parties feasible electorally), saying TPS began in Britain appears incorrect.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

About whether UK is Two party system or Multi-party system

On the page Politics of the United Kingdom, the second paragraph says it is a multi-party system, but I am seeking views of other knowledgeable Wikipedians.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Noting one UK Wikipedian believes the UK has a two-party system here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Copying a comment from a user on the Talk:Politics of the United Kingdom page:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The Conservatives and Labour are the two most dominant party in parliament. Until the last election, these parties formed government alone for the last half century. The Lib Dims are a smaller party (but not a minor one) and are currently king-makers in a coalition government. Scotland, Wales and (particularly) Northern Ireland have their own parties, which are present in the Westminister parliament. Minor parties are also represented in the Westminister parliament (e.g. UKIP and the Greens). So, no, the UK is not two-party system. It is a multi-party system. --Tóraí (talk) 00:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I am listening to a Teaching Company lecture on history of conservatism by scholar Patrick Allitt who said, surprisingly to me, that both the US and UK had two-party systems in the sense that with the UK, if party Z won 20% of the vote, it would get less than 20% of the seats -- he was referring to the UK in the mid 20th century, which confirms a sentence in the lede, although my own view is the US is more of a two-party system in the sense that practically no seats get won by 3rd party candidates.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The UK may have multiple parties but it is only two parties who ever lead it. The Conservatives and Labour (and before them Conservatives and Liberals). Even the last coalition was effectively a Tory govt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.80.255.163 (talk) 11:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Prisoner's dilemma?

Could the two party system (or at least, the effects of it) be considered a variant of the prisoner's dilemma? I.E., if everyone voted for a third party who they actually preferred then hypothetically the trap could be broken, but third party votes will always remain a very small minority (even if, ideally, a majority would prefer one of the third parties) due to the urge to vote for the "lesser of two evils", and the desire to not waste a vote? At the very least, is the prisoner's dilemma relevant enough to add to the "See also" section? Xmoogle (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

P.S. for sources, [1], [2] and [3] seem relevant from the point of view of the electorate being the prisoners, and [4] seems relevant from the point of view of the two parties being the prisoners. Xmoogle (talk) 01:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Bilateral symmetry, evolution similarities

I would like to see inclusion of research that has been done on the similarity between the biological evolution of bilateral symmetry from a gob of protoplasm compared to how a two-party system naturally emerges from plurality/winner-take-all voting, per "Duverger's law". In both processes, there is a literal split that forms into a left and a right.--Chris from Houston (talk) 07:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Links to democracy

Why isn't anything mentioned here? How is that small parties in the US have no chances at all? Everytime it comes down to the two biggest parties wasting a bunch of money on their election campaigns instead of using it to help people. Moreover, "the winner takes it all" doesn't make sense at all, it just distorts the results. --2.245.79.113 (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Australian politics

If in Australia there are not two technical parties but rather two major political groupings, well the article should indicate this (within the body of the text) and let's leave it as a reference note in the lede sentence -- the reason being that there are two major types of two-party systems (as the article explains) -- the strict type (US, Jamaica, Malta) in which there are no third party legislators (a HUGE FLAW in US politics imho) and much more sensible looser systems such as Britain and Australia, in which there tend to be two dominant major parties, but in which other parties can get candidates elected to office. I'd much rather be a citizen of Australia or New Zealand. But getting back to the point, the change in wording is not substantial enough to merit inclusion in the lede sentence; if one wishes, maybe an article about two-party coalitions in Australian politics can be floated.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Ireland

Despite coalitions and additional representation, politics in the ROI is a stitch up between Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil which are little different and have held power for decades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.80.255.163 (talk) 11:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Two-party system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120205005205/http://electionaffairs.com/parties/UPA.html to http://electionaffairs.com/parties/UPA.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

United States

The two-party system in the United States is the only such system where other parties are virtually absent from national politics which makes them a unique oddity in the democratic world. Because of this, I think it should have its own article. Charles Essie (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• I support this, if all the necessary sources and information can be gathered, I'm all for it. Noam Chomsky had some very noteworthy views of the United States' "two-party" system that would be important in a new page for the subject. Temeku (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• I support this too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovin'Politics (talk • contribs) 09:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support, I am sure that there are many case studies about the nature of the Duopoly of political power in the United States. PyroFloe (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• I support this too. Good reasoning. Prodrummer619 (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• I oppose this on the grounds that we already have a main article for that section: Political parties in the United States. Two-party system in the United States should redirect to that article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  There's more info about it here so unless you plan to merge the content on this page over there it would make no sense to change the redirect. Charles Essie (talk) 16:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• I oppose this on grounds that the US is NOT the only strictly-two-party system in the world. Jamaica, Belize, and Trinidad and Tobago all have no third parties in their legislatures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caleb M1 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  That's because those are small countries with small legislatures. What makes the United States a unique case is that it has a two-party duopoly in spite of its size and diversity. Charles Essie (talk) 16:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support It's surprising that such an article doesn't exist yet. The two party system of the US is pretty well-known and covered by multiple media and publications. It deserves its own article. PadFoot2008 (talk) 05:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Support America's two party system is unique in it's corporate duopoly. As third parties don't stand a chance compared to other countries with a parliamentary system. This alone can be a basis for an article. Rager7 (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

"One-party state 2.0" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect One-party state 2.0. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 7#One-party state 2.0 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. dudhhr_Contribs 17:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Political Sociology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2022 and 17 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zach w1101 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by ImagineWorldPeace (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)