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

The “Two-Party System” Explained

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

First, it is important to note that there is no formally instituted “two-party system” in any country. In fact, political parties were not even meant to be part of the “republics” we have today (what many wrongly call “democracies”). The designers of this system of governance originally designed the system not only to be indifferent to or even NOT to incorporate political parties but, in their own words, to actually and specifically prevent the formation of political parties!¹ This was a main goal of the system we have now. Parties, however, regardless, soon emerged on their own, took over the system, and quickly came to be accepted as part of the system; this was against a strong warning from the first president to rule under this system, about the dangers political parties pose.² In spite of this, political parties, over time, came to be formalised by many countries which adopted this system of governance.

With party politics having become normalised or even formalised in many countries as an unintended consequence rather than deliberate design, this party politics has also generally tended to result in a duopoly  in many of such countries (what is sometimes wrongly referred to as a “two-party system”). A duopoly is when two political parties become dominant in a country, becoming practically impossible to defeat or unseat, for many generations, in spite of growing frustrations with their dominance. As it turns out, this is common to many “democracies” today. How and why does it happen and how can it be resolved (given the many problems associated with it)?

Duopolies NOT Caused by “Voting Systems”

The voting method (often termed “voting system”) is NOT responsible for the emergence or not of duopolies, contrary to what many scholars today believe.

Voting is only a method of arriving at a decision. It is one of many methods that can be used for making a choice in a democracy; and can be divided into several sub or specific methods in itself. Specific voting methods may have various advantages over one another but voting, regardless of the form it takes, is merely tangential and does not deal with the actual question or problem.

Causes of Duopolies in Politics Today

The system of governance itself is what creates and reinforces a duopoly. The systems of governance we have, by design, ensure that AT MOST two political parties become and remain dominant, always, no matter what anyone else does. Many smaller parties across the world and through many generations have thrown and continue to throw away huge fortunes in hopes of changing duopolies to no avail. Often, they are driven by the idea or hope that can change their fortunes if there are:

• Long-standing and growing frustrations with the duopoly
• Damning reports on the parties in the duopoly
• Far better ideas, policy proposals or manifestos coming from smaller parties
• Desire for change among the youth or new generations and/or
• Immense resources or campaign spending

The forces that spur duopolies are, however, stronger than any of these factors, and even the best efforts of third parties hardly makes a dent in outcomes, election after election, across the world. Why? The sooner such parties can recognize and accept the real problem, the sooner they can explore alternatives that actually can work for change.

As we have already noted in the opening paragraphs, the systems we presently call “democracies” are not actually democracies but “presidential (or autocratic) republics” (this is explained in some of our other posts); and this irrefutable fact is very important!

Among the “republics” or “quasi-republics” we have today, countries with specifically presidential systems have the duopoly problem the most; even though it is not “deliberately” designed into the system, it happens to be so, and this is not by accident either.

How the System of Governance Creates a 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), to claim it, ensures that this competition devolves, and divides the country, into a competition between the largest/strongest two camps or parties. It will always boil down to the “last two.”

When newer or smaller parties try to interfere or disrupt this, presenting themselves as a better option, they hope to draw in votes of smarter or more discerning people from one of the major or dominant parties, but this only creates room for the worst of the duopoly to win! Given that elections in this system is a high-risk and high-stakes situation, none can afford such risks lest they be left with a terrible choice for another 4 years (and for eternity as it persists)!

Therefore, any attempts to dilute the votes of any of the major parties only drives them further, even the better voters amongst them, to reinforce what they consider to be at least the lesser of two evils guaranteed to win the elections. This cycle constantly reinforces itself – the more people try to change it, the stronger it gets – and data in Ghana, the U.S. and many other countries shows it.

Trend of presidential election results in Ghana, from 1996 to 2024 © citinewsroom

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

For those with strictly parliamentary systems (like the U.K. and others) their system forces them to focus on the control of parliament as the primary goal of their politics, since parliament is the locus of power (rather than the control of a presidency), so, their kind of politics also has a slightly different dynamic, where you don’t have too much of a duopoly, but still end up with dominant parties, and then smaller parties reduced to playing alliances with the larger party(s); with control of parliament as a bargaining chip. The core problem, however, still remains as the country is essentially split into two camps or coalitions.

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

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

The solution to the problem of duopoly in politics therefore lies in changing the system of governance itself, to remove the competition for power, distribute power properly to the people, which will in turn shift focus away from dirty party politics for power, and unto issues and proper problem-solving instead; and there are ways to achieve this, as in a true democracy. These are, however, much broader and diverse conversations to be had, which cannot fit into a single article. Explore other posts on our page to learn more, or better yet get our source materials with all the details and references.

Footnotes

1. See the Federalist Papers.
2. See George Washington’s farewell address.

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