Disadvantages Of Party Fusion

In recent discussion of Democrats and Republican parties, a controversial issue has been whether or not the U.S. should expand their options from more than a two party system. On the one hand, some argue that there should be more choices other than between the two Democrat Party and Republican Party. From this perspective, voters have more of a variety when they vote. On the other hand, some argue that the U.S. should remain as a two party system. In the words of Gary Johnson, one of this view’s main proponents, “The Republicans and Democrats have spent decades trading power back and forth between themselves, and in doing so, have managed to install a two-party duopoly that completely controls America’s political process.” According to this view, Democrats and Republicans are dictating other parties opportunities to get elected. In sum, then, the issue is whether there should be other options rather than a choice between the Democrat and the Republican Party. I agree with Gary Johnson’s view that the Democrat and Republican Parties are controlling America’s

A two party system is strong and influential although it allows lesser parties to exist and have an influence. As a result a majority party will form the government and the minority party will form the opposition, and coalitions of the lesser parties are possible. These systems can also be multi-party systems. The Two-party sytem has advantages and disadvantages they consist of: Advantages,: It can lead to political stability which leads, in turn, to economic growth, two-party systems have been seen as preferable to multi-party systems because they are simple to govern, while multi-party systems can sometimes lead to parliament. The disadvantages: Two-party systems have been criticized extreme views, and putting a second opinion on debate within a nation, two-party systems for fail to provide enough options since only two choices are permitted on the ballot, 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." 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. I think having a two-party system is ideal because neither major party is strong enough to win without bringing up specific topics that they believe in or their ideology of their party. The way the Republicans and Democrats present

     In the following essay I will be talking about the disadvantages and advantages of partisan elections for state politics. I will also examine the last couple year’s election results and costs. Finally, I will discuss if partisanship made a difference in the vote, as well as if a judge should be decided by partisan vote. In the next couple paragraphs I will talk more specifically about these topics.

Generally speaking, anyone who lives in the United States of America knows that there are two main political parties—the Republicans and the Democrats. Having two main parties has its advantages and, of course, its disadvantages. For example, in By the People James E. Monroe and Rogan Kersh (301) point out having this type of system creates “predictability and stability.” However, they also declare (301) it can “lead to a gridlock.” This is not a new concept either as there has been a divide since the beginning of both parties. The two parties more often than not disagree on various issues, while rarely agreeing on what is best for the country.

The United States has maintained its two party system for some time, but the major parties have not always been so clearly separated. In the early and mid-twentieth century, polarization was actually declining, as there was much ideological overlap between the members of the two parties (Kuo). Many people, such as conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans, rested in the ideological middle. Additionally, each party represented a coalition of diverse interests. At

In Ohio, "nonpartisan" elections vote justices into office. However, Preceeding these elections are partisan primaries, and each justice must campaign. If the justice wins the election, the justice will want to be re-elected as well. If they want their party to vote for them, they have no choice but to side with the party on issues, instead of interpreting the constitution as it is written. For these reasons, the Missouri Plan should be implemented in Ohio to prevent justices from acting as activists, and to keep justices from excessive partisan influence.

“It is a natural evolution of our mass consciousness to begin to see third parties as a viable option; it is reflected in the corrupt and broken two-party system.” Michelle Augello-Page, an author and writer, uses this quote to speak to the frustration Americans feel about the two-party political system. Since the 1850’s, the Democrats and Republicans have received the majority of the popular vote, while third party candidates struggle election after election (Schechter). The two major party candidates don’t always speak to the issues many Americans want to be addressed. Therefore, Americans must consider voting for third party candidates to ensure democracy works for everyone.

In the following essay I will be talking about the disadvantages and advantages of partisan elections for state politics. I will also examine the last couple year's election results and costs. Finally, I will discuss if partisanship made a difference in the vote, as well as if a judge should be decided by partisan vote. In the next couple paragraphs I will talk more specifically about these topics.

In the article, “Framed Up What the Constitution gets wrong” written by Hendrik Hertzberg, Robert Dahl’s perspective on the United States Constitution, he is in favor of the “American system does a better job than the democratic alternatives, and quite a

John Adams, one of the founding fathers, wrote that “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution” (“Quote by John Adams”). The Two-Party system has been around since the start of America. The Two-Party system is a system that has two parties that the government, or America in this case, has that lead the government or America. At the current time, the two parties are the Republican and Democrat parties. It was created with the idea that everyone can be represented within either of the parties. Even though it does create some representation of the people, the two-party system does not create an equal policy in society because it does not allow people to get far if they are not within either of the two parties, does not allow the idea of having more than two parties, and because it doesn't represent everyone.

The United States government is commonly referred to as a “Duopoly”, which means that there are two established political parties, Democratic and Republic, and that these two parties share the vast majority of the political power in the country. This is because the United States follows a winner-takes-all voting system, utilizing a “single-member district plurality”. The “single-member district” portion means that for each geographic area or district, there is only one elected official, and the “plurality” portion means that in United States elections, the representative or politician who receives the most number of votes, wins the given election, even if it’s less than half the percentage of votes. According to Duverger’s law, a Political Science principle, plurality voting procedures correlationally support the emergence of only two political parties, in contrast to a multiparty democracy.

Despite the clear dislike for nonpartisan elections by parties Nebraska managed to pass a term limit in 2000 to offset unicameral elections. This only increased partisanship drastically due to parties playing a direct role in candidate recruitment and increasing party coalitions (p. 76). Parties were now more involved in recruiting candidates that had the same ideologies and interest as them. In essence, the concept of having unicameral

America is vastly known as a country boundlessly pursuing equality in all facets of life. In this seemingly endless quest for equal opportunity, there has been one lurking negation; our election system. The addition to equal representation in public funding and on the ballot will create variability and allow Americans to entrust their vote in a political format that more closely aligns with democratic philosophy. Therefore, a shift away from a bipartisan, a two party, dominated election system would not only be a healthy change for American electoral satisfaction, but for the future of third party politics. Unfortunately affluence and inherent wealth have played a large role in this divide between a true democratic election and our present biased, broken, and benyne system.

The Constitution has nothing to say about political parties. Nowhere does it define political parties or explicitly specify that there should be two dominant parties. Nevertheless, America has had a strong two party system for last 150 years, a degree of party stability and endurance that can be found in no other nation (Landy and Milkis, 451). This system of two dominant parties has both its advantages and its drawbacks, the same as any system will. The two strong parties simplify and stabilize American politics from both the citizens’ and the politicians’ point of view and allow for government to be unified across the separation of powers built into the Constitution

Today, political parties are an authoritative and essential component of the United States political system. However, it is important to examine how the political parties began and evolved over hundreds of years, since they were first established. In 1794, the major political parties were the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. The major difference between these two was that the Federalists favored a strong central government, while the Democratic-Republicans preferred a central government with limited power and more state control. At the time of the election, it seemed that the prominent, distinguished Federalist Party clearly had the upper hand, but in the end the