The document argues that the two-party political system in the United States has become problematic and ineffective at addressing the country's most pressing issues. It has led to increased gridlock and partisan bickering. The threat of a government shutdown last month underscores this problem. Many Americans now feel the two-party system is inadequate. A multi-party system could offer more viable options for voters and allow more comprehensive solutions to issues. However, some argue more parties may cause confusion and weaken the political system. But today's circumstances require a different approach to find solutions to the economic problems facing the country.

1. Phillip Clark Clark 1
Professor Jamie Watts
English 102
05 May 2011
Transcending the Two-Party System: A Hearkening Call to a Necessary Alternative
The United States of America has always served as a unique and luminary example for
the community of nations across the globe. The extraordinary history, culture, and values of the
country – proclaiming unconditional liberty and freedom to all – can understandably resonate
with any citizen of the world stage. Its influence in the modern era is unparalleled. Surprisingly,
the internal political makeup of America has changed very little. The balance of power is
maintained between three co-equal branches of government – the executive branch (the
President), the legislative branch (the Congress), and the judicial branch (the Supreme Court).
Yet, for a large portion of its history, all of these governing institutions have been solely
dominated by two major parties: the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. What was
always viewed as an effective and exemplary model of civic life has recently proven
problematic, and in many recent cases, stagnant, and downright ineffectual. It has become clear
that adopting a system that goes beyond the two-party model would not only offer more viable
political options for Americans to choose from, but would also allow more meaningful and
comprehensive solutions to be found when confronting the plethora of issues that the United
States faces today.

2. Clark 2
The very imminent threat of last month’s averted shutdown of the federal government
underscores this point profoundly. All agencies of the government may have come to a
screeching halt simply because partisan bickering had prevented both the Democratic and the
Republican entities in Congress from coming to an agreement on how to keep these respective
programs funded (“Associated Press”). Having a real-life situation where such a scenario very
well could have played out makes it all the more clear why, now more than ever, 31% of
Americans feel that the two-party system which has governed the political operations of the
United States for the greater part of its three-hundred year history is inadequate (“Wall Street
Journal”). This fact emphasizes that instead of compromise and reasonable solutions carrying the
day, ideological extremes and perpetual political confrontations have become the norm. Such an
environment transforms politics from a science that seeks to guarantee the best possible remedies
that will benefit as many individuals as possible to a petty, juvenile boxing match – that seems to
reward winners with temporary victories.
After being presented with these statistics, the question begs to be asked: how did
America find itself in this dreary political predicament? Ironically, in its earliest days multiple
parties flourished with vitality throughout the country. It was only in the middle of the nineteenth
century that what we know today as the Republican and Democratic parties emerged onto the
public square. The Democratic Party had its roots with one of the nation’s earliest presidents,
Andrew Jackson – who is traditionally considered its first leader. The Republican Party came to
fruition by the efforts of anti-slavery activists – most prominently, Abraham Lincoln – who
would lead the nation as president during the catastrophic strife of the Civil War. As the

3. Clark 3
infrastructure of the country developed and grew in prominence many parties which had thrived,
slowly slipped into irrelevance. As the role of the United States changed from being a political
experiment, to that of an emerging power on the world stage, the dynamics of issues which were
of national importance to the whole country came to the forefront.
The Democratic and Republican parties capitalized on this trend, and it would be the other
minor parties – which were much more concerned with regional and local issues – that would
lose ground as this paradigm shift continued to take hold across the United States (Berger).
Essentially, by the 1930’s, no major third parties were successful in winning elections for
positions in Congress. Subsequently, the drift of the Republican and Democratic parties towards
having sole dominance in the American political system had begun (Sorauf 29-30).
Apparently, this civic concoction has proven effective for the greater part of the last
century. Its tenets have ensured that America has remained a unique model of efficiency and
strength the world over. Keeping in mind these external benefits of the present system,
proponents argue that it is the only one that will genuinely ensure stability and fair representation
for all. While it is often alleged that more political options would allow for a better selection of
viable and alternative choices, the common wisdom for supporters of the status quo is that this is
not in fact the case. More choices may lead to greater ambiguity about where certain parties
stand on various issues (Huffington). Consequently, this confusion will serve to divide rather
than unite prospective voters who may be considering supporting the respective parties. In short,
too vast a spectrum of options can serve to weaken – rather than strengthen a political system –
in virtue of the many matters that could be left unresolved or forgotten by such a wide collection

4. Clark 4
of parties. Given the large pool of civic expression, it may be hard to find points of harmony and
unity for prospective voters to coalesce around when so many diverse and contrary options exist
to choose from (“Duke”).
Supporters will further argue that another benefit of the current system is legislative
expedience. The party who has a majority in the legislature does not have to rely on support from
the minority party to pass various laws and statutes (Berger). This is seen as pragmatism at its
most effective exercise. Generally speaking, the majority party usually has control over what
issues will come up for a vote and which ones will pass, thus eliminating the task of forging
coalitions and watering down legislation in order to make it buoyant. Considering this reality
leads to another observation.
The system of checks and balances that is inherent in the American form of government
some would argue is inseparable from the two party system. If so many parties are involved in
the governing of the internal affairs of a country’s wellbeing, there is ultimately bound to be
overreach, negligence, or even tyranny found in negotiating on certain matters where no
common ground can be forged. With so many different veins of interpretation it is easy for one
or more voices to gain the upper hand, simply because all voices must be heard in order to come
to a workable solution. Having only two parties in government ensures that all persons will have
a say and that no unreasonable ideas will be given consideration or weight simply because they
have won a representative position in government.
These all seem like very rational and laudable considerations for explaining the enduring
relevance of America’s two-party system compared to those of other countries. In fact, all one

5. Clark 5
need do is to examine the apparent dysfunctionality rampant throughout many European
parliamentary structures to see this point made convincingly. Yet, is this the satisfactory answer
to the many questions that the political future of the United States of America is facing today?
Are the issues the country is facing so simplistic that they can easily be dismissed with these
assertions?
Today’s circumstances seem to present a different and most necessary proposition. In
November of 2010 the Democratic Party’s majority which they had held in the House of
Representative since 2006 was revoked and the Republican Party assumed control of the
chamber. This was done in response to the Democrats’ perceived inability to address America’s
overwhelming economic woes, particularly its spiraling national debt, the federal budget deficit,
and the fact that in a short number of years many federal entitlement programs – which
contributed the most to these amassed fiscal pitfalls – would be bankrupt. Instead of focusing on
these many pressing issues for the first two years of President Barack Obama’s presidency, the
Democratic Party had largely concentrated on passing through Congress what had been a
signature initiative of their party for years, universal healthcare coverage for all Americans.
Despite the passage of the historic legislation, Democrats took a drubbing in the polls as
Americans expected Republicans to focus on what was supposed to be their political strong suit,
limiting the size of unnecessary government intervention and enacting fiscal responsibility on all
fronts.

6. Clark 6
Instead of such hopes ensuing, the GOP has drawn lines in the sand on a variety of issues
when it comes to negotiating on the numerous urgent issues that the United States faces –
particularly its economic quandaries. Most recently, it seems that the Republican Party has
focused peculiarly on social issues – something the American people as a whole have not voiced
a large degree of sympathy for – instead of enacting legislation and solutions that would help
solve the economic problems for which they were elected to Congress in the first place.
This just goes to show that instead of creating efficiency and harmony, America’s two
party system has now only led to intensified gridlock and polarity. Because there are merely two
viable choices available in today’s current political scheme, the ideas that emanate from both of
these parties are the only ones that see the light of day. Such a stale and limited environment of
consideration and innovation has only led to political inertia and discouragement by the
American public at large (“Duke”). In such a situation, more available choices – not less – would
only help to strengthen the opportunity of effective and comprehensive solutions being forged in
Washington.
Such a pervasive sense of polarization has also contributed to the fact that when
compromises and partial agreements are made, these can never ultimately be effectual in
achieving the long-term objectives for which they were meant to reach. Because both parties
simply double down and become entrenched in their own ideological philosophies when trying
to confront a problem, the answers that are found to the question at hand are only temporary, or
“sub-optimal”, as Thomas Friedman of the New York Times noted (Huffington). Allowing more
independent choices in the public square would not only increase political options, but would

7. Clark 7
also enable prospective pieces of legislation or policy matters to become more nuanced,
reasoned, and moderated when being considered. Having more voices at the table would only
serve to edify the American political debate, not undermine it (“Duke”).
The most frightening and sobering reality about America’s ineffective political climate is
that voters have long realized how broken the present system is. The longer this dilemma is
ignored the more voters will refuse to take part in the political process, due to the notion that no
choices are truly novel and that no meaningful solutions can ever be reached in Washington
“Duke”). More and more young individuals simply state that they do not pay attention or have no
interest in politics for this very reason. Taking all of this in stride, how harmful to the United
States would it be if as many throngs of youths who turned out for then-candidate Barack Obama
in 2008 decided to stay at home in November of 2012 simply because not enough had been
noticeably accomplished in his first term as president?
The United States of America is currently enduring its most grim and daunting internal
trial it has had to grapple with since the Great Depression. Reason and fact show that if its fiscal
plight is not dealt with imminently and comprehensively it could potentially follow the path of
nations such as Greece and Portugal in Europe who have simply buckled under the economic
pressure and have had to be rescued with expensive bailout programs by other wealthy nations.
However, things must not necessarily remain so. In the past presidential election, America
showed that it had truly grown up in a profound way when it consented to having its first-ever
African-American occupant take the helm of the country in the Oval Office. Seen in this context,
change can only further help to strengthen and lead the nation into ever brighter days of hope

8. Clark 8
and prosperity. Transcending the two-party system, which now no longer elicits sufficient
affectivity, must be seen as a potential path towards a successful future. Doing so will only
courageously fulfill the motto which has served for so long as one of America’s most seminal
and fundamental values, “E pluribus unum” (Out of many, one).