The Constitution And Multiparty Politics

The United States Constitution outlines the rules for electing the President but does not address how political parties should choose their candidates. The two-party system in the US has been a topic of debate, with some arguing that it is not what the Founding Fathers intended. John Adams, for instance, feared that a division of the republic into two great parties … is to be dreaded as the great political evil. The two-party system has been criticised for its lack of diversity in ideologies, with the parties being too similar and standing for too little. From the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, American politics resembled a four-party system, with liberal and conservative factions within both the Democratic and Republican parties. This allowed for more fluid bargaining within the constitutional system. However, in recent years, the two parties have become more distinct, making it harder for them to agree on a national level. While the US has a dominant two-party system, other countries have multiple parties that are recognised and compete in elections, and some operate with a single-party system.

Explore related products

Dynamics of the Party System: Alignment and Realignment of Political Parties in the United States

$17.49 $26

The American Political Party System: Continuity and Change Over Ten Presidential Elections

$28.31 $42

The Idea of a Party System: The Rise of Legitimate Opposition in the United States, 1780-1840 (Jefferson Memorial Lecture Series) (Volume 2)

$29.88 $31.95

The Broken Two-Party System: How a Multi Party System Can Restore Civility and Community to the Country

$14.95

Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis (Ecpr Classics)

$95.06 $100

Political Parties: A Kid's Guide (Kids' Guide to Elections)

$7.95

The US Constitution doesn't outline how political parties choose candidates

The US Constitution outlines the rules for electing the President, but it does not provide any guidance on how political parties should choose their candidates. The process of choosing candidates has evolved over time, with the past system involving party conventions dominated by powerful party bosses who controlled delegates' loyalties. The selection of presidential candidates was influenced by trading favours, patronage, and money, rather than reflecting the will of the people.

Dissatisfaction with this system led to efforts for reform, and the process has since changed. Today, the United States operates within a multi-party system, with the Democratic and Republican Parties as the most influential. However, other parties, including the Libertarian, Socialist, Green Party, and more, also participate in presidential elections.

The US Constitution contains very few provisions relating to the qualifications of electors, who are the only ones who vote for the President. The Twelfth Amendment, enacted in 1804, made adjustments to the Electoral College system, mandating distinct votes for the President and Vice President and requiring that one of the candidates not be from the same state as the elector. While the Constitution does not require electors to be free from the influence of political parties, it also does not prohibit this, and electors generally hold leadership positions within their parties.

The two-party system has been criticised not for being too divided, but for the parties being too similar and standing for too little. This allowed for fluid bargaining within the constitutional system, but with the development of distinct party identities, this is no longer possible.

The two-party system is a result of early political battling between federalists and anti-federalists

The United States Constitution does not explicitly address the formation of political parties, but the country's early political landscape was dominated by the battle between Federalists and Anti-Federalists, which laid the groundwork for the two-party system.

Political factions or parties began to form during the struggle over the ratification of the federal Constitution of 1787. The Federalists, led by Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, wanted a strong central government. They feared mob rule and believed that an educated elite should represent the general populace in national governance. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists, led by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, advocated for states' rights instead of centralized power, drawing their support from those who favoured an agrarian society.

The friction between these two groups intensified as attention shifted from creating a new federal government to determining the extent of its power. The partisan battles led George Washington to warn of "the baneful effects of the spirit of party" in his Farewell Address as President of the United States. Despite this warning, the lack of a consensus candidate to assume the presidency only intensified party struggles, with John Adams and Thomas Jefferson leading partisan factions into the national elections of 1796.

The Federalists and Anti-Federalists, later known as the Republican Party, battled over issues such as immigration and free speech, with the Federalists enacting the Alien and Sedition Acts out of fear of a violent overthrow of the government due to the influx of French refugees. The Acts restricted immigration and made strong criticism of public officials illegal, leading to the imprisonment of several newspaper publishers and writers. The Republican Party, drawing on the strength of the Anti-Federalists, worked to repeal these Acts.

The early political landscape, marked by the battle between Federalists and Anti-Federalists, set the stage for the two-party system that has characterized much of American political history. However, it is important to note that this system has been criticized for fostering similarity between parties, making it difficult to reach agreements at the national level.

John Adams worried about a division of the republic into two great parties

The United States' two-party system has been a long-standing feature of its political landscape, dating back centuries. However, this system was not set in stone by the Constitution, and it has faced criticism from various quarters, including some of the nation's founding fathers like John Adams.

John Adams, the second President of the United States, famously expressed his concern about the potential division of the republic into two dominant parties. In a letter to Jonathan Jackson on October 2, 1780, Adams wrote, "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." He considered this scenario "to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."

Adams' apprehension about a two-party system was not unfounded. He and other founding fathers, like George Washington, feared that if a consistent partisan majority gained control of the government, it would lead to oppression of the minority. This, they believed, would erode the fragile consent of the governed, resulting in violence and authoritarianism.

The critique of the two-party system in American politics has often been that the parties are too similar and stand for too little. From the mid-1960s through the mid-1990s, the system resembled a four-party structure, with liberal and conservative factions within both the Democratic and Republican parties. This allowed for fluid bargaining and coalition-building, which is essential for a functional constitutional system.

However, in recent years, the two parties have become more distinct, making it harder to form coalitions and agree on national-level policies. This has resulted in increased polarization and gridlock in American politics, validating John Adams' long-held fears about the detrimental effects of a divided republic.

Explore related products

The American Political Party System: A Reference Handbook (Contemporary World Issues)

$59.4 $66

Money Rules: Parties, Oligarchs and Funding Regulation in Post-Soviet Countries (Routledge Studies on Political Parties and Party Systems)

$144 $180

Conservative Parties and the Birth of Democracy (Cambridge Studies in Comparative Politics)

$17.96 $35

Why Parties?: A Second Look (Chicago Studies in American Politics)

$31 $30.99

The Oxford Handbook of American Political Parties and Interest Groups (Oxford Handbooks)

$64 $68

Leaders, Factions and the Game of Intra-Party Politics (Routledge Studies on Political Parties and Party Systems)

$42.55 $55.99

The two parties were too similar and stood for too little

The US Constitution does not explicitly address the number of political parties allowed. However, the country has been predominantly characterized by a two-party system. From the mid-1960s through the mid-1990s, American politics resembled a four-party system, with liberal Democrats, conservative Republicans, liberal Republicans, and conservative Democrats. Despite this, the two-party system has persisted, and it has drawn criticism for its limitations.

One critique of the two-party system is that the parties are too similar and stand for too little. This criticism is not unique to the United States, with similar sentiments expressed in other countries with a two-party dominance, such as the United Kingdom. The perception of similarity between the two main parties in the US can be attributed to their operation as loose, big-tent coalitions of state and local parties. This structure makes it challenging to reach agreements at the national level.

The lack of distinct ideological differences within the two-party system has led to voter dissatisfaction. According to a Pew Research Center survey, about four-in-ten Americans express a desire for more political parties to choose from. This sentiment is particularly prominent among younger adults, with about half of adults ages 18 to 49 wishing for more political parties. Additionally, those who do not strongly align with either the Republican or Democratic Party are more likely to support the idea of having additional party options.

The two-party system has also been criticized for hindering coalition-building and bargaining, which are essential aspects of a healthy multiparty democracy. John Adams, one of the Founding Fathers, warned that "a division of the republic into two great parties" would lead to oppression of the minority and the breakdown of consent, potentially resulting in violence and authoritarianism. The current polarized political climate in the United States exemplifies the concerns Adams raised centuries ago.

The similarities between the two parties and their limited ideological stances contribute to voter dissatisfaction and a perception of limited choices. This has resulted in a growing level of multipartyism, with voters seeking alternatives to the traditional two-party system. While the US Constitution does not prohibit the formation of additional parties, the entrenched two-party system has proven challenging to overcome, leading to calls for reform and a more diverse political landscape.

The two-party system allows for fluid bargaining and coalition-building

The two-party system has been a feature of American politics for centuries. However, it has not always been the case that the two parties were truly distinct. Until the 2010 midterms, the two parties contained enough overlapping multitudes that bargaining and coalition-building, natural to multiparty democracy, could work within the two-party system.

For much of American political history, the critique of the two-party system was not that the parties were too different, but that they were too similar and stood for too little. The parties operated as loose, big-tent coalitions of state and local parties, which made it difficult to agree on much at a national level. From the mid-1960s through the mid-90s, American politics had something more like a four-party system, with liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans, alongside liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. This allowed for fluid bargaining, with different coalitions possible depending on the issue.

In a multiparty system, the formation of a government depends on the maintenance of a coalition of parties with enough total strength to form a parliamentary majority. The two-party system is said to promote governmental stability because a single party can win a majority in parliament and govern. In Great Britain and Canada, differences in programs and composition between the two major parties have been perhaps greater than in the United States. Nevertheless, a broad area of agreement exists among the leading parties, allowing for governmental control to alternate between the parties without drastic shifts in policy.

In countries like Britain, two major parties with strong influence emerge and tend to elect most candidates, but a multitude of lesser parties exist and sometimes elect officials who participate in the legislature. These systems are usually referred to as multi-party systems or a two-party-plus system. In the United Kingdom, for example, the two-party system allows other parties to exist, and these parties can win seats in Parliament. In 2010, the Liberal Democrats allied with the Conservative Party to form a coalition government.

Coalition-building involves developing a party strategy, negotiating coalition terms, and identifying lessons learned. Coalitions can be fluid, changing with each vote, and can be classified as internal or external. They can also be formed in response to danger, uncertainty, or extraordinary events.

Frequently asked questions