What Causes the “Two-Party System;” and Why Debates on “Voting Systems” Are Pointless

The “Two-Party System”

Many scholars debate how to solve or change the “two-party system” due to its troubles. They often propose alternative “voting systems” – such as Ranked Choice or Approval Voting over First Past the Post (FPP) – to do this.

First, it’s important to note that there is no formally instituted “two-party” system. In fact, political parties were not even intended to be part of the “republics” we have today (what many wrongly call “democracies”). In the Federalist Papers (which the Founders used to explain the U.S. system, which influenced other systems), you will find that the design of the current presidential republics we have was meant to rather PREVENT the formation of parties! So, parties happened on their own later, and came to be accepted; they were not designed into the system, much less as a “two-party” system.

What happens now are duopolies, where two parties become dominant (not necessarily become the ONLY parties). The system ensures they become and remain dominant (at least in the short to medium term) no matter what we do! It reinforces itself. But what “system” ensures this?

Cause of the “Two-Party System”

It’s NOT the “voting system” that causes this, as many scholars debate.

It is the system of governance itself that creates a duopoly, and reinforces it. “Voting system” is only tangential to this question; to focus on “voting systems” is to be looking at the problem through the wrong lens.

A Funny Example

It’s like creating a boxing match to determine who gets to eat. We could pick the fighters by vote (including all the different ways of voting) or by random selection, alphabetically or other means.

When we discuss “voting systems,” we’re focusing on how we pick the fighter in this case, whereas the problem is the boxing match itself; the system for determining who eats is wrong.

Cause of the “Two-Party System” (Continued)

NOT the “Voting System”

Voting is only a method of arriving at a decision. It’s a good (but not the only) method in a democracy, but voting method (rather than “voting system”) is NOT the form of governance in itself. So, even though specific voting methods may have advantages over another, voting methods in themselves do not deal with the actual question or problem; they’re merely tangential.

The System of Governance

The problem, as we have stated, is the form or system of governance itself.

This problem is not easily summarized – as this is only a simplification – but hopefully should suffice as a hint. You’ll find a more detailed exploration of this subject, and it’s various dimensions and angles, dependencies and solutions in the source cited at the end of this.

But, essentially, as we have already stated, the systems many presently call “democracies” are not democracies but presidential (or autocratic) republics (explained in a previous post); this is very important.

Countries with presidential systems are the ones that have the duopoly problem; this is not by accident; that is the cause.

How the System of Governance Creates the “Two-Party System” (Duopoly)

Presidential systems concentrate power in the presidency, and create competition for this office. This competition for power, exercised in an environment that allows teams to gang up (as political parties), ensures that this competition devolves into, and divides the country into, a competition between the largest/strongest two; all smaller parties/interests are drawn into picking sides between the last two.

That is why countries like Switzerland especially, and to some extent Germany, that don’t concentrate power in a single autocrat (the president) don’t have these problems as much (especially Switzerland which has a more diffused system of government).

Strictly parliamentary systems focus on the control of parliament as the goal of politics, and, so, their kind of politics also takes a different shape, where you don’t have too much of a duopoly, but still end up with dominant parties and the rest reduced to playing alliances with the largest one or two, with control of parliament as a bargaining chip. The core problems of governance still remain.

If you change the voting method under any system of governance, the core problems will still remain; and especially under the current systems, the competition for power, the role of money and negative influences in politics and the exclusion of more intelligent minds and people among the masses from governance and politics, all remain.

Solution to the “Two-Party System” (Duopoly)

The solution to the problem of the “two-party system,” therefore, lies in changing the system of governance itself, to remove the competition for power, and shift focus away from parties, and instead to the people, and issues: as in a true democracy. How do we create a true democracy? Explore our other posts or source materials to learn more.

Source: The Tragedy Called Democracy in the 21st Century (2023) pp. 217-239