Legislative Vs Executive

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

“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 order to participate in major elections, third parties must first overcome a myriad of obstacles that have been put in place by both the founding fathers and politicians of our current two-party system. Rosenstone and his colleagues contend that the most important barrier in place to discourage the success of third parties is the plurality single-member districts that are the cornerstone of the American electoral process. Not only do single-member districts elect only one member to higher office, but they also allow such elections to occur without an electoral majority. If voters know that a third party is unlikely to receive a substantial amount of votes, they may believe a vote for the party would be a wasted vote. This requirement for a plurality of votes is especially detrimental for a third party presidential campaign, due to the fact that the Electoral College distributes electoral votes to the winner of each statewide vote (excluding Nebraska and Maine), and the only plausible way for a third party candidate to receive any electoral votes is to be extremely popular in a certain region of the United States. Unlike the two major

Another reason for the insignificance of third parties and the reason for the two party system is the first-past-the-post (FPTP) voting system. Unfortunately for third parties, the two main parties always tend to come out with the majority even if they don’t win the popular vote. An example of the unfairness of this voting system is in 2008 the independent party of America managed to get 1 in every 5 votes but still didn’t manage to gain seats. Having said that, FPTP in theory allows for a strong stable government with a hefty majority providing they dominate congress and the legislature.

Despite the fact the founding fathers advised contrary to the establishment of political factions as the Constitution withstood the ratification process, a rift amongst men in President George Washington’s cabinet instituted the move toward the conception of political party. During the time period between 1791 and 1833, a two-party system had begun that demonstrated the philosophy of the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans. Although these two political groups were unyielding in their original ideas and beliefs, both had to change a few of their initial standpoints on numerous topics as they dealt with the truth of the government.

The political system of America is very different from other developed and developing democracies. Most notable is the increased power bestowed on the upper house of the parliament, the extensive power held by the Supreme Court and the dominance demonstrated by only two major parties. In the United States, third parties have the least influence on the world’s most developed democracy’s political structure. In this democracy, people are under the US Constitution of the governmental system as well as state government and other units of local government. Local government entails counties, districts and municipalities. The evolution of the American political party system has come a long way; with Hamilton and Jefferson being regarded as the founder fathers of the modern party system. These were heads of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist groups in the 18th century of American politics. Ever since, the country has maintained a party system that has two main parties that are relatively stable. These are Democrats and Republicans and have remained in contest for election every time since the 1860 presidential elections. Initially, the Republican Party was the dominant party but the Democrats later gained dominance. However, the two parties became closely competitive and neither of them has been notably dominant since the 1970s (O'Connor & Sabato, n.d).

American politics is often defined by a continuing power conflict between the executive and the legislative branches of the government. This struggle for political power between the two stronger branches of the three is inherent in the Constitution, itself. The concepts of separation of powers and checks and balances ensure that the branches of government will remain in conflict and provide a balance that keeps the entire government under control. As it was first established, the executive branch was much smaller and weaker than as we know it today. Consequently, the legislative branch was unquestionably dominant. Over the course of history, the executive branch grew in both size and power to the point where it occasionally overtook the

In 1789, the U.S. did not have a two-party system. The two-party system is rooted in the beginnings of the nation itself. The Framers of the Constitution were opposed to political parties. The ratification of the Constitution saw the birth of America's first two parties: the federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, and the Anti-Federalists, who followed Thomas Jefferson. The nation had only had George Washington, who was President without a party at that time. During George Washington’s two terms, a conflict developed between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, who were both Federalists men. Jefferson challenged Adams under the umbrella of the Democratic - Republican Party. In addition, the Democratic - Republican Party was the first real party that contained the formal beginnings of the present day two-party system. The word Democratic infers to “will of the people”, the word Republican infers to “rule of law” which is defense from possible oppression of the majority. In short, the American party system began as a two-party system. In this essay I will be discussing the why America needs a two-party system, why a multi-system may work for the nation and the conflicts, and how does this political system contributes to the nation and why a two-system is worth the struggle.

First, 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. The idea of the winner-take-all electoral system is the hostile terrain for third parties because the odds are in favor of the bigger parties (Conray). The bigger parties over the years seem to have the upper hand within the government, and especially within the elections.

A political two party system is one where two parties have complete dominance over voting, in terms of seats and the general vote. The multi- party system however describes a system where more than two parties have the ability to win role as government. In this essay I will give a balanced argument on whether Britain is a two party, or multi- party system.

Democracy in the United States is based on the indirect representation of the people by elected officials who are usually chosen by direct vote. Almost from the beginning of the United States' history, however, two parties have shared the great majority of the elected positions from the local level to the presidency. However, up until the mid-1850's when the Republican party was formed, other parties such as the Whigs, Federalists, and Anti-Federalists did not last very long. The Democratic Party has existed for much longer, tracing its roots from Thomas Jefferson's Democratic Republican Party beginning around 1792 (Encarta). The two largest parties have changed, third parties have

This is largely because there have only been two parties for so long, and these two parties have made it such a point to make their separation of ideals and beliefs blatant, so the vast majority of the voters have for the most part picked a definitive “side”, so to speak, and have registered as a member of the corresponding political party, that caters the most to their individual ideals. Because of this, it has made it very hard for any smaller parties to gain enough support to

This puts into perspective the disparity that Republicans and Democrats hold against other parties, it would be huge for a third party to get one percent of the vote. He discusses the importance that the Libertarians get at least one percent of the vote because it would help them break through a large barrier. This article concludes by saying that the LP has a good chance of breaking the typical third party barrier. They have the most support as a third party, and among others, they do the best in all

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 parties formed after the Constitution was adopted as the need to systematically search for and encourage popular support became apparent. The structure of a party allows a group of like-minded politicians to mold popular support in the favor of the candidate of their choice where alone they could only accomplish the creation of multiple less organized and therefore less politically potent factions. The nature of the political system already in place gave no value to coming in second or third in elections at any level of government, leading to the natural growth of two strong parties who battle for supremacy at every election (July 22). The winner takes all, and the opposition spends their time getting ready to try again as they wait for their next chance. Once the two parties, Democrat and Republican, were firmly settled in to the system they affected legislation to give themselves automatic ballot access and state funding, making election that much harder for other parties and thereby ensuring that it remained a two party system (July 22).