The Two-Party System (AQA A-Level Politics): Revision Notes
The Two-Party System
Introduction
Both the UK and the USA operate under two-party systems, where politics is dominated by two main political parties. In the UK, these are the Conservative Party and the Labour Party. In the USA, they are the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. However, whilst both countries share this fundamental characteristic, the way these systems operate reveals important similarities and differences.
The operation of the two-party system
Key similarities
Both political systems share several important characteristics in how their two-party systems function:
Internal coalitions
The main parties in both countries can be described as internal coalitions. This means they contain a wide range of views and ideological positions within a single party structure. For example, the Labour Party contains both hard-left factions (such as Momentum) and more moderate members, whilst the Conservative Party includes one-nation Tories alongside more right-wing elements.
Similarly, the Republican Party encompasses both Tea Party conservatives and more moderate Republicans, whilst the Democrats include progressive members and centrist politicians. This internal diversity is a defining feature of major parties in both systems, allowing them to appeal to broader constituencies.
Ideological distinction
Each of the main parties can now be accurately labelled as either conservative or broadly progressive. They maintain ideologically distinct positions on key issues:
- Conservatives and Republicans generally favour lower taxes, tighter immigration policies, and smaller government intervention
- Labour and Democrats place greater emphasis on minority rights, environmental policies, and wealth redistribution through taxation
Party rebellions
Both systems experience internal party rebellions and revolts, reflecting the broad spectrum of ideas contained within each party. This manifests in leadership contests and selection processes.
For instance, the 2019 Democrat primaries saw Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren representing the progressive wing, whilst Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg were more centrist. In the UK, the 2020 Labour leadership contest featured Rebecca Long-Bailey as heir to Corbyn's legacy and Sir Keir Starmer as a more centrist option.
Electoral system advantages
Both main parties in each country strongly favour retaining their current electoral systems because these arrangements greatly aid their dominance in parliament or Congress. The electoral systems over-reward the main parties at the expense of third parties and independents.
Key differences
Despite these similarities, important differences exist in how the two-party systems operate:
Different internal divisions
The issues creating divisions within parties differ considerably across the Atlantic. In the Conservative Party, the main split until 2019 centred on Brexit (Leave versus Remain). In contrast, Republican divisions focus on foreign policy, trade policy, and the appropriate size of federal government and the budget deficit.
Social policy positions
The Conservative Party is more socially progressive than the Republicans on issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage. Additionally, Conservatives firmly support the NHS (National Health Service), whilst no Republican would favour a 'socialised healthcare system'.
The Democrat Party under Biden is more moderate and centrist than Labour was under Corbyn, though Starmer's election in 2020 moved Labour more toward the centre ground.
Ideological development
UK parties have historically been more ideologically based and distinct, as reflected in their names (Liberal, Conservative, Labour). This ideological clarity is a much more recent development in the USA.
Party unity
Party unity in the legislature generally remains lower in the USA compared to the UK, though the period 2015-19 saw considerable internal divisions in both UK parliamentary parties. In 2016, Corbyn lost a vote of confidence in the parliamentary Labour Party by 176-40 votes. Theresa May faced large-scale backbench revolts over her Brexit deals in 2018-19.
By contrast, US parties in Congress are becoming increasingly unified. In the Trump impeachment vote, no House Republicans and only two House Democrats broke party ranks, demonstrating the growing partisan cohesion in American politics.
Central party control
The dominance of the central or national party is much weaker in the USA, partly due to the country's size and diversity. Primaries also contribute to weakened central control over local state parties.
Alternative electoral systems
In some UK elections, particularly European elections and for devolved assemblies, Labour and Conservatives compete under alternative electoral systems. This means neither party dominates these elections to the same extent. The Scottish Parliament is dominated by three parties, not two. There is no parallel to this in the USA.
Applying comparative theories
Three theoretical approaches help explain how two-party systems operate: cultural theory, rational theory, and structural theory.
Cultural theory
Cultural factors explain the historical acceptance of two-party dominance in both countries. This acceptance is more pronounced in the USA, where the two-party duopoly has only been temporarily suspended once (in the late 1850s). It is also a longstanding feature of British, or at least Westminster, politics.
Periods of party realignment have occurred, such as the 1920s when Labour eclipsed the Liberals as the main opposition to the Conservatives, and the 2010-15 coalition government.
Parliament's seating arrangements physically convey the two-party nature of British politics. The official designation of 'Her Majesty's Official Opposition' in the UK, and 'House/Senate Minority Leader' in Congress, reinforces this sense of a single main opposition party.
Rational theory
Rational choice theory explains that two-party dominance leads the main parties to appeal to a broad spectrum of voters. Large parties cannot be narrow and niche by their very nature.
This creates a self-fulfilling cycle: votes for third parties, especially in the USA, are seen as 'wasted votes', which encourages voters to support one of the two dominant parties, often regarded as the 'lesser of two evils'. This rational calculation by voters reinforces two-party dominance.
Structural theory
Structural factors, particularly electoral systems, cement the two-party grip on power. The use of FPTP (First Past the Post) for most elections in both countries creates significant barriers for smaller parties. However, specific structural features differ between the two countries and affect party dominance differently.
Why the USA maintains a two-party system
Cultural aspects of third parties
US third parties have much shallower historical roots than their UK counterparts. The two largest third parties in the USA are relatively recent creations:
- The Libertarian Party was founded in 1971
- The Green Party originated in the 1980s
US party politics has typically seen a succession of third parties rise and then quickly disappear. For example, George Wallace and the American Independent Party emerged but did not establish lasting significance.
Interestingly, whilst the USA has enormous cultural, ethnic, and regional diversity, the country is so large and diverse that establishing viable regional parties at the national level would make politics unworkable. Instead, the USA has two national parties with distinct regional characteristics.
Additionally, independence (secession from the Union) is a complete non-starter in the USA. The outcome of the American Civil War definitively settled this issue, unlike in the UK where Scottish and Welsh nationalism remain politically viable.
Structural barriers to third parties
Several structural features of US politics promote two-party dominance:
Ballot access laws
Laws concerning ballot access make it extremely difficult for third-party candidates to get on the ballot. Large numbers of signatures or a certain percentage of votes in previous elections are often required. The lack of a national election system creates significant handicaps, as many states have particularly high thresholds.
For example, the third-party presidential candidate filing fee for Oklahoma in 2020 was $35,000.
By contrast, UK requirements are far lower and simpler: all candidates need a £500 deposit (refundable if they achieve over 5% of the vote) and a nomination form signed by just ten voters.
Presidential debate qualification
Another major obstacle for third-party candidates and independents is qualifying for televised presidential debates. To qualify, candidates must poll an average of at least 15% in five designated polls.
This creates a Catch-22 scenario: third-party candidates need the publicity from debate participation to grow their support and visibility, yet their lack of television exposure means they usually fail to register high poll numbers.
Rational incentives
The dominance of the two-party system creates its own reinforcement. Even high-profile independently minded candidates, such as Trump and Sanders, who could conceivably run outside the Democrat and Republican parties, logically choose instead to run for nomination in one of the two main parties.
The primary system increases this incentive to run under a 'mega-party' label. With its emphasis on personalities, individual platforms, and direct appeals to voters, the primary system attracts a wide spectrum of candidates who frequently owe little to the central party organisation.
In many ways, US parties appear to comprise huge numbers of independent political operatives, each with their own donor base, campaign team, and particular message. This structure allows for greater internal diversity but maintains the two-party framework.
When party defections occur in the USA, they invariably happen between the two main parties. A recent example is New Jersey congressman Jeff Van Drew, who quit the Democrats for the Republicans in 2020.
Why the UK is moving toward a multiparty system
Cultural depth of UK third parties
UK third parties have far deeper historical roots than their US counterparts:
- The Liberal Democrats can trace their origins to the beginning of modern parliamentary government and were one of the two dominant parties until the early twentieth century
- The nationalist parties in Scotland and Wales can trace their ancestry to the interwar period
- In Northern Ireland, the unionist/nationalist divide has historical roots in the nineteenth century
- Sinn Féin won its first Westminster seat in 1918
Greater attraction for third-party candidates
Without a primary system, the UK holds far more attraction for candidates to seek election for parties other than Labour and Conservative. When party defections occur in the UK, they frequently involve the Liberal Democrats.
Several former MPs from both main parties, including Chuka Umunna and Heidi Allen, set up the short-lived Change UK Party in 2019 before joining the Liberal Democrats. This demonstrates the greater flexibility for politicians to operate outside the two main parties in the UK system.
Other MPs disillusioned with their party's direction have chosen to stand as independents. In 2019, this included former Conservative attorney general Dominic Grieve and longstanding Labour MP Frank Field. However, all were defeated at the general election, demonstrating the harsh electoral logic that still favours the main parties.
Tactical voting opportunities
In the UK, whilst most constituencies are Labour/Conservative battlegrounds, many constituencies offer scope for tactical voting, which can benefit third parties, especially the Liberal Democrats.
Example: St Albans 2019
The Liberal Democrats' 2019 gain in St Albans saw Daisy Cooper defeat the incumbent Conservative MP. She benefited from a collapse in the Labour vote (which fell by over 8,000), suggesting many Labour voters had tactically switched to the Liberal Democrats to defeat the Conservative candidate.
The significance of third parties
Balance of power
Third parties in the UK have recently held the balance of power, giving them considerable importance:
2010-15 Coalition
A formal coalition government between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats resulted from the 2010 election. The Liberal Democrats influenced policy direction through:
- The referendum on the alternative vote system
- Scrapping Labour's plans for compulsory ID cards
2017-19 Confidence and supply
During May's minority government, a less formal 'confidence and supply' agreement was made with Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionist Party (DUP). The deal secured:
- An extra £1 billion of funding for Northern Ireland
- An ongoing Conservative commitment to safeguard the Union
There is no historical parallel for this in the USA. Control of Congress has always rested with one of the two main parties, often with different parties controlling each chamber. This requires a different approach to political compromises, with legislators seeking bipartisan support rather than coalition arrangements. Third parties are entirely excluded from this process.
Representation in devolved assemblies
In devolved assemblies using different electoral systems (STV - Single Transferable Vote and AMS - Additional Member System), the two main parties struggle to dominate:
- In Northern Ireland, the party system is entirely different, with neither main UK party having any representation
- In Wales and Scotland, nationalist parties (SNP and Plaid Cymru) are significant players
- The Scottish government is dominated by the SNP, albeit often as a minority government
Given the growth in powers of devolved assemblies, third parties have become additionally significant in these institutions. This demonstrates how electoral systems can fundamentally reshape party competition and representation.
By contrast, no state government in the USA deviates from the norm of two-party control. Examples of third-party candidates elected to major office even at state level are extremely rare:
- Lowell Weicker won the 1990 Connecticut gubernatorial election for his newly formed 'A Connecticut Party', but the party quickly disappeared once its founder moved on
- Jesse Ventura won the 1998 Minnesota governor's race on the Reform Party ticket but quit the party within a year
When Libertarian and Green parties do hold elected posts, these are invariably at the lowest levels of local government, such as district school boards or town councils.
Impact on policy
This lack of representation means US third parties struggle to have any significant impact on national policies and legislation. Unlike the UK, there are no examples of policy compromises to accommodate coalition partners.
The closest parallel is co-optation of policies, when one of the main parties adopts a policy from a third party that appears to be finding support among voters:
Examples of Policy Co-optation
- Independent candidate Ross Perot pledged to eliminate the federal budget deficit in his 1992 campaign, which was subsequently adopted by both main parties
- In 2019, the Democrats adopted the Green Party's New Deal, with its emphasis on tackling climate change and carbon emissions
This co-optation arguably lessened the distinctive appeal of the Greens, leading to a loss of potential votes. Their candidate Howie Hawkins received just 0.2% of the vote in 2020.
The 'spoiler' effect
Third parties and independents have their main significance in US politics as 'spoilers'. Occasionally they can spoil the chances of a party winning an election by siphoning off crucial votes and handing victory to their rival.
Key Example: 2000 Presidential Election
In the 2000 presidential election, Green candidate Ralph Nader won enough left-leaning votes in Florida to spoil the chances of Democrat Al Gore, leaving George W. Bush to take the presidency. The irony is that Gore is a committed environmentalist.
In 2016 and 2020, third parties took more votes in the three Rust Belt swing states than the winning margins of the two victorious candidates.
Evidence exists in the UK too of third-party votes determining election outcomes. In 2019, former Labour leader Ed Miliband (strongly Remain) clung on to his Doncaster North seat with a majority of around 2,000 votes over the Conservatives, whilst the Brexit Party came third with over 8,000 votes, therefore 'spoiling' the result for the pro-Brexit cause.
The significance of independent candidates
Although third parties and independents are far less important in US politics, a case can be made that independents are occasionally more prominent in the USA.
US independents
Many US third parties are focused on their founder, who is already a high-profile politician having originally been elected for one of the main parties. Therefore, although having a formal third-party label, in reality they run as independents rather than as nominees of established third parties.
In 2020, the two senators not formally affiliated to either main party were:
- Angus King (Maine)
- Bernie Sanders (Vermont)
Both were officially elected as independents, although both enjoy close relations with the Democrat Party. Sanders ran for the Democrat nomination in both 2015 and 2019, and both men caucused with the Democrats. Neither faced significant Democrat opposition in their Senate races.
UK independents
Very few true independents are elected in the UK, and when they are, it is normally because at least one other party has stood down for them.
Example: Martin Bell 1997
Former BBC reporter Martin Bell stood and won in 1997 as an independent in the safe Conservative seat of Tatton. Neither Labour nor the Liberal Democrats contested the seat, which helped him to victory. He was the first truly novice independent MP to be elected since 1951.
Party politics dominates the UK political landscape, with the additional obstacle that wealthy individuals wishing to run as independents are unable to spend unlimited amounts on their campaigns (unlike in the USA).
Summary of third-party significance
Third parties and independents have considerably more influence and significance in the UK in terms of both electoral success and influencing policy-making. The USA, whilst seeing occasional support for charismatic individual independent candidates, lacks established viable third parties with realistic chances of winning major elected offices.
This explains why high-profile, maverick populists such as Trump decided to run as Republicans rather than as independents or third-party candidates. The answer lies mainly in the lacklustre outcomes for third parties and independents in previous US elections.
Remember!
Key takeaways:
- Both the UK and USA operate two-party systems, but important differences exist in how these systems function
- Cultural, rational, and structural theories all help explain the operation and persistence of two-party dominance
- The USA maintains a strong two-party system through structural barriers (ballot access laws, debate qualification rules) and rational incentives (primaries, wasted vote concerns)
- The UK is arguably moving toward a multiparty system, particularly in devolved assemblies where different electoral systems (STV, AMS) allow third parties greater representation
- Third parties are far more significant in the UK, having held the balance of power through coalition governments (2010-15) and confidence and supply arrangements (2017-19)
- Independent candidates are occasionally more prominent in the USA, though they rarely achieve major electoral success
- Both systems demonstrate the power of electoral systems (primarily FPTP) in shaping party dominance and limiting third-party representation