Commonwealth countries

Main articles:  Political parties in the United Kingdom  and  Political parties in Canada

In countries such as Britain, two major parties emerge which have strong influence and tend to elect
most of the candidates, but a multitude of lesser parties exist with varying degrees of influence, and
sometimes these lesser parties are able to elect officials who participate in the legislature. Political
systems based on the Westminster system, which is a particular style of parliamentary
democracy based on the British model and found in many commonwealth countries, a majority
party will form the government and the minority party will form the opposition, and coalitions of
lesser parties are possible; in the rare circumstance in which neither party is the majority, a hung
parliament arises. Sometimes these systems are described as two-party systems but they are usually
referred to as multi-party systems or a two-party plus system. There is not always a sharp boundary
between a two-party system and a multi-party system.

Generally, a two-party system becomes a dichotomous division of the political spectrum with an
ostensibly left-wing and right-wing party: the Democratic Party versus the Republican Party in the
United States, the Labor Party versus the Liberal–National Coalition bloc in Australia, the Labour
Party versus the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom, and the Labour Party versus
the Nationalist Party in Malta.

Other parties in these countries may have seen candidates elected to local or subnational office,
however.[13]

In some governments, certain chambers may resemble a two-party system and others a multi-party
system. For example, the politics of Australia are largely two-party (the Liberal/National Coalition is
often considered[by whom?] a single party at a national level due to their long-standing alliance in
forming governments;[citation needed] they also rarely compete for the same seats for the Australian
House of Representatives, which is elected by instant-runoff voting, known within Australia as
preferential voting. However, third parties are more common in the Australian Senate, which uses
a proportional voting system more amenable to minor parties.

In Canada, there is a multiparty system at the federal and provincial levels; however, some provinces
have effectively become two-party systems in which only two parties regularly get members elected,
while smaller parties largely fail to secure electoral representation, and two of the three territories
are run under a non-partisan consensus government model rather than through a political party
system. The provincial legislative assemblies of Alberta and Saskatchewan currently have only two
parties; two-party representation has also historically been common in the legislative assemblies
of British Columbia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, although all did elect some third-party
members in their most recent provincial elections.

The Commonwealth Caribbean while inheriting their basic political system from Great Britain have

become two-party systems. The politics of Jamaica are between the People's National Party and
the Jamaica Labour Party. The politics of Guyana are between the People's Progressive
Party and APNU which is actually a coalition of smaller parties. The politics of Trinidad and
Tobago are between the People's National Movement and the United National Congress. The Politics
of Belize are between the United Democratic Party and the People's United Party. The Politics of the
Bahamas are between the Progressive Liberal Party and the Free National Movement. The politics of
Barbados are between the Democratic Labour Party and the Barbados Labour Party.
The politics of Zimbabwe are effectively a two-party system between the Robert
Mugabe founded Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front and the opposition
coalition Movement for Democratic Change.

United States

Main article:  Political parties in the United States

See also:  First Party System,  Second Party System,  Third Party System,  Fourth Party System,  Fifth
Party System, and  Sixth Party System

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please

help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources.
Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Two-party
system" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (December
2019)  (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

It has been suggested that this section be split out into another article.
(Discuss) (January 2021)

The United States has two dominant political parties; historically, there have been few instances in
which third party candidates won an election. In the First Party System, only Alexander
Hamilton's Federalist Party and Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party were significant
political parties. Toward the end of the First Party System, the Democratic-Republicans were
dominant (primarily under the Presidency of James Monroe).

Under the Second Party System, the Democratic-Republican Party split during the 1824 United
States presidential election into Adams' Men and Jackson's Men. In the 1828 presidential election,
the modern Democratic Party formed in support of Andrew Jackson. The National Republicans were
formed in support of John Quincy Adams. After the National Republicans collapsed, the Whig
Party and the Free Soil Party quickly formed and collapsed.

In 1854 began the Third Party System when the modern Republican Party formed from a loose
coalition of former Whigs, Free Soilers and other anti-slavery activists. The Republicans quickly
became the dominant party nationally, and Abraham Lincoln became the first Republican President
in the 1860 presidential election. The Democrats held a strong, loyal coalition in the Solid South. This
period saw the American Civil War where the South (which was mostly dominated by the Southern
Democrats) attempted to secede as the Confederate States of America, in an attempt to
preserve racial slavery. The South lost the war and were forced to end slavery, and during the
following Reconstruction Era the Republicans remained the most popular party nationally while the
Democrats remained dominant in the South.

During the Fourth Party System from about 1896 to 1932, the Republicans remained the dominant
Presidential party, although Democrats Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson were both elected to
two terms.

The 1932 United States elections saw the onset of the Fifth Party System and a long period of
Democratic dominance due to the New Deal Coalition. Democrat President Franklin D.
Roosevelt won landslides in four consecutive elections. Other than the two terms of
Republican Dwight Eisenhower from 1953 to 1961, Democrats retained firm control of the
Presidency until the mid-1960s. In Congress, Democrats retained majorities in both houses for 60
years until the Republican Revolution, broken only by brief Republican majorities.

There was a significant change in U.S. politics in 1960, [14] and this is seen by some as a transition to
a sixth party system.

Since the mid-1960s, despite a couple of landslides (such as Richard Nixon carrying 49 states and
61% of the popular vote over George McGovern in 1972; Ronald Reagan carrying 49 states and 58%
of the popular vote over Walter Mondale in 1984), Presidential elections have been competitive
between the predominant Republican and Democratic parties and no one party has been able to
hold the Presidency for more than three consecutive terms.

In the 2012 United States presidential election, only 4% separated the popular vote between Barack
Obama (51%) and Mitt Romney (47%), although Obama won the electoral vote (332–206).

Throughout every American party system, no third party has won a Presidential election or
majorities in either house of Congress. Despite that, third parties and third party candidates have
gained traction and support. In the election of 1912, Theodore Roosevelt won 27% of the popular
vote and 88 electoral votes running as a Progressive. In the 1992 Presidential election, Ross
Perot won 19% of the popular vote but no electoral votes running as an Independent.

Modern American politics, in particular the electoral college system, has been described as

duopolistic since the Republican and Democratic parties have dominated and framed policy debate
as well as the public discourse on matters of national concern for about a century and a half. Third
Parties have encountered various blocks in getting onto ballots at different levels of government as
well as other electoral obstacles, such as denial of access to general election debates. Since 1987,
the Commission on Presidential Debates, established by the Republican and Democratic parties
themselves, supplanted debates run since 1920 by the League of Women Voters. The League
withdrew its support in protest in 1988 over objections of alleged stagecraft such as rules for camera
placement, filling the audience with supporters, approved moderators, predetermined question
selection, room temperature and others. [15] The Commission maintains its own rules for
admittance[16] and has only admitted a single third-party candidate to a televised debate, Ross Perot,
in 1992.[17]

Some parts of the US have had their own party systems, distinct from the rest of the country.

 In Puerto Rico, there is a multi-party system with the Popular Democratic Party and New

Progressive Party being the two strongest parties. Minor parties in the 2021 legislature
include the Puerto Rican Independence Party, Citizens' Victory Movement and Project
Dignity.

 In Guam, the Popular Party was the only political party from 1949-1954, and was dominant
until 1967 when they became affiliated with the Democrats. Since then, the Democrats and
Republicans have been the two main parties.

 In the Northern Mariana Islands, the Democrats and Republicans are the two main parties
but as recently as 2013, the Governor was a member of the Covenant Party.

 In American Samoa, the American Samoa Fono (territorial legislature) is non-partisan, and

on ballots only candidate names are displayed, not political parties. The Governor has
typically been either Democrat or Republican.
  In the US Virgin Islands, the Democrats and Republicans have been the main two parties, but
two Governors during the 1970s were part of the Independent Citizens Movement, and from
2015-2019 the Governor was an independent.

Advantages

Some historians have suggested that two-party systems promote centrism and encourage political
parties to find common positions which appeal to wide swaths of the electorate. It can lead to
political stability[3][failed verification] which leads, in turn, to economic growth. Historian Patrick Allitt of
the Teaching Company suggested that it is difficult to overestimate the long-term economic benefits
of political stability. Sometimes two-party systems have been seen as preferable to multi-party
systems because they are simpler to govern, with less fractiousness and greater harmony, since it
discourages radical minor parties,[3] while multi-party systems can sometimes lead to hung
parliaments.[43] Italy, with a multi-party system, has had years of divisive politics since 2000, although
analyst Silvia Aloisi suggested in 2008 that the nation may be moving closer to a two-party
arrangement.[44] The two-party has been identified as simpler since there are fewer voting choices. [3]

Disadvantages

Two-party systems have been criticized for downplaying alternative views, [3][4] being less competitive,
[7]
 encouraging voter apathy since there is a perception of fewer choices, [3] and putting a damper on
debate[4] within a nation. In a proportional representation system, lesser parties can moderate policy
since they are not usually eliminated from government. [3] One analyst suggested the two-party
approach may not promote inter-party compromise but may encourage partisanship. [4] In The
Tyranny of the Two-party system, Lisa Jane Disch criticizes two-party systems for failing to provide
enough options since only two choices are permitted on the ballot. She wrote:

Herein lies the central tension of the two–party doctrine. It identifies popular sovereignty with
choice, and then limits choice to one party or the other. If there is any truth to Schattschneider's
analogy between elections and markets, America's faith in the two–party system begs the following
question: Why do voters accept as the ultimate in political freedom a binary option they would
surely protest as consumers? ... This is the tyranny of the two–party system, the construct that
persuades United States citizens to accept two–party contests as a condition of electoral democracy.

— Lisa Jane Disch, 2002[45]

There have been arguments that the winner-take-all mechanism discourages independent or third-
party candidates from running for office or promulgating their views. [7][46] Ross Perot's former
campaign manager wrote that the problem with having only two parties is that the nation loses "the
ability for things to bubble up from the body politic and give voice to things that aren't being voiced
by the major parties."[37] One analyst suggested that parliamentary systems, which typically are
multi-party in nature, lead to a better "centralization of policy expertise" in government. [47] Multi-
party governments permit wider and more diverse viewpoints in government, and encourage
dominant parties to make deals with weaker parties to form winning coalitions. [48] Analyst Chris
Weigant of the Huffington Post wrote that "the parliamentary system is inherently much more open
to minority parties getting much better representation than third parties do in the American
system".[48] After an election in which the party changes, there can be a "polar shift in policy-making"
when voters react to changes.[3]
Political analyst A. G. Roderick, writing in his book Two Tyrants, argued that the two American
parties (the Republican Party and the Democratic Party) were highly unpopular (as of 2015), are not
part of the political framework of state governments, and do not represent the 47% of the
electorate who identify themselves as "independents". [49] He makes a case that the American
president should be elected on a non-partisan basis,[49][50][51] and asserts that both political parties are
"cut from the same cloth of corruption and corporate influence." [52]

Others have accused two party systems of encouraging an environment which stifles individual
thought processes and analysis. In a two party system, knowledge about political leaning facilitates
assumptions to be made about an individuals' opinions on a wide variety of topics
(e.g. abortion, taxes, the space program, a viral pandemic, human sexuality,
the environment, warfare, opinions on police, etc.) which are not necessarily connected.

"The more destructive problem is the way this skews the discussion of the issues facing the nation.
The media – meaning news sources from Fox News to the New York Times and everything in
between – seem largely incapable of dealing with any issue outside of the liberal versus conservative
paradigm. Whether it's dealing with ISIS, the debt ceiling, or climate change, the media frames every
issue as a simple debate between the Democratic and the Republican positions. This creates the
ludicrous idea that every public policy problem has two, and only two, approaches. That's nonsense.
Certainly some problems have only two resolutions, some have only one, but most have a range of
possible solutions. But the "national" debate presents every issue as a simplistic duality, which
trivializes everything." —Michael Coblenz, 2016 [53]