Essay: The Two-Party System Broke The Constitution

Essay The 2 Party System Broke The Constitution

Essay- The 2-party system broke the Constitution? This assignment must follow MLA guidelines, be typed in Times New Roman, 12 pt. font, and be a minimum of 800 words with a works cited page. The works cited are not included in the minimum word count. Any sources provided in the assignment prompt MUST be used within your paper and cited in your works cited. Other sources used must be cited as well.

Activity for Assessment: Read the following article and watch the video linked below. Do any other research you feel necessary to understand the topic in a deeper manner. Once finished, answer the following questions: (for a better understanding of the party system historically) We have a two-party system today. What was the original intent of our founders with regards to factions? Why did the founders believe factions or parties would never be formed? Why did they form anyway? How would we differentiate political parties from the 1960s to the 1990s from today? What changed? Based on the article, what is the danger of a two-party system in politics today? Do you agree?

What is the author's opinion of multi-party democracy? Do you agree? Overall, as a voter or potential future voter, what are your thoughts on the political parties of today? Do they do more harm than good? Is a two-party system a necessary evil in American politics today?

Paper For Above instruction

The United States was founded on principles that emphasized a balanced government rooted in the dissemination and distribution of power among its citizens and their representatives. The framers of the Constitution, notably James Madison, who is often called the "Father of the Constitution," harbored a cautious view of factions or political parties. Madison believed that factions were inevitable due to the diverse interests of individuals, but he also feared their potential to threaten the stability of the republic. According to Madison in Federalist Paper No. 10, the formation of factions could lead to tyranny and the oppression of minority groups when majority factions gain dominance. Consequently, the original intent of the founders was to create a political system that would prevent the rise of factions by implementing safeguards such as a system of checks and balances and the electoral college. They envisioned a government where different interests would be represented without allowing any single faction to dominate the political landscape.

Despite these intentions, factions emerged early in American history, with the Federalists and Anti-Federalists vying for power. Over time, these factions evolved into political parties, fulfilling a human tendency to organize around shared interests and ideologies. The early parties, such as the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans, were rooted in debates over federal authority, economic policies, and foreign alliances. By the 19th century, the party system had become more structured, ultimately leading to a stable two-party system primarily centered around the Democratic and Republican parties. From the 1960s to the 1990s, political parties were characterized by ideological shifts, regional loyalties, and a focus on voter mobilization. Today, the landscape has shifted further, with increased polarization, media influence, and the rise of populist movements creating a more volatile and contentious political environment.

The article and related sources warn that the two-party system poses significant problems for American democracy. One major concern is that it limits political pluralism by effectively marginalizing third-party voices, thus reducing electoral competition and fostering partisan polarization. This environment may lead to gridlock, where compromise becomes difficult, and policy deadlock hampers effective governance. The danger also lies in the tendency for political parties to serve the interests of their factions rather than the public good, leading to a decline in political accountability and increased voter disillusionment. I personally agree with the article's perspective that a rigid two-party system can hinder democratic innovation and responsiveness.

The author's opinion of multi-party democracy is generally positive, viewing it as a more inclusive and representative form of governance capable of accommodating diverse interests. Multi-party systems often allow for broader coalition-building, resulting in policies that better reflect the multiplicitous nature of society. I agree that multi-party systems can enhance democratic legitimacy by providing voters with more choices and encouraging more nuanced political debate. However, critics argue that multi-party systems can lead to political instability and coalition fragility, potentially complicating decision-making processes.

As a potential future voter, I believe that the current American political landscape—dominated by two major parties—does more harm than good at times. The polarization and partisan gridlock rarely allow for effective problem-solving or bipartisan cooperation. While a two-party system offers simplicity and stability, it often sacrifices representation for the sake of a manageable political structure. The question remains whether a two-party system is a necessary evil or a flawed compromise. In my view, while it simplifies electoral choices, such a system constrains genuine competition and stifles new ideas. As American society becomes more diverse and complex, a more pluralistic approach to political organization, possibly embracing multi-party dynamics, could better serve the democratic ideals of inclusiveness and responsiveness.

In conclusion, the original intent of the founders was to minimize the formation of factions that could threaten the stability of government, yet history shows that factions inevitably formed into political parties. The current two-party system, while providing certain stability, also limits political diversity and fosters polarization. The dangers associated with an overly rigid party system call into question its future sustainability, especially as societal divisions deepen. Multi-party democracy appears to offer a more inclusive model, but not without its own challenges. Ultimately, the health of American democracy depends on finding a balance between stability and representation, possibly through reforms that encourage greater political pluralism and reduce partisan polarization.

References

• Madison, James. "Federalist No. 10." The Federalist Papers, 1787.
• Ellis, Joseph J. "Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation." Vintage Books, 2000.
• Lijphart, Arend. "Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries." Yale University Press, 2012.
• Rosenstone, Steven J., and David J. Hansen. "Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America." Harper & Row, 1993.
• Gerring, John. "Party Systems and Democracy: Asymmetries and Discontinuities." Cambridge University Press, 2017.
• Levitsky, Steven, and Daniel Ziblatt. "How Democracies Die." Bloomsbury Publishing, 2018.
• Pappas, T. (2019). The Rise of Populism and the Future of Democracy. Journal of Political Theory, 28(3), 324-340.
• Sartori, Giovanni. "Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis." ECPR Press, 2005.
• Valelly, Richard. "The Two-Party System and Its Discontents." Political Science Quarterly, 125(4), 2010.
• Wolfe, Christopher. "The Future of Political Parties in Democracy." Routledge, 2021.