The American Two Party Political System Essay free essay sample

, Research Paper The American two Party Political System Since the disposal of George Washington two political parties have dominated the United States political system, but they have non ever been the same two parties. The first two parties were the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. Federalists were those who supported a strong federal authorities and the Anti-Federalists were those who did non. The leaders of the Federalists were Alexander Hamilton and John Adams. Both were from the Northeast where the Federalist line of thought was strongest. Thomas Jefferson became the leader of the Anti-Federalists. These two groups truly did non considered themselves parties. The laminitiss feared parties because they thought of them as cabals. They were self centered and driven by aspiration to send on their ain opportunisms. Thomas Jefferson organized his Anti-Federalist followings and they became known as the Jeffersonian Republicans. This organisation of the Federalist resistance in the election of 1800 is what is known as the Revolution of 1800. The Federalists feared the Jeffersonians were out to sabotage the authorities, while Jefferson? s party felt the same about the Federalists. By the clip Jefferson was elected to the presidential term in 1800 his party was called Democratic Republican. The Federalist Party disappeared as a political force by the 1820 election, largely because of its resistance to the War of 1812. The autumn of the Federalist Party left the state with merely one major party, but merely for a short clip. During the 1820? s Democratic Republicans began to divide into two parts. The conservativists of the party favored a strong patriotism, a protective duty, and a national bank. They called themselves National Republicans. The others stood for provinces # 8217 ; rights, duty for gross merely, and an independent exchequer. They took the name Democratic and elected its leader, Andrew Jackson, to the Presidency in 1828 and 1832. The party of Jackson is today # 8217 ; s Democratic Party. By the election of 1836 the National Republicans and other anti-Jacksonians had merged to organize a new party, the Whigs. They lost to the Democrats that twelvemonth, but in 1840 they succeeded in acquiring William Henry Harrison elected President. In 1844 the Whig campaigner, Henry Clay, lost to James Polk, but in the following election Zachary Taylor won for the Whigs. This seemed to be a clip of uncertainness in political way. While this uncertainness was taking topographic point, a societal force greater than party trueness was get downing to reshape American political relations. The slavery issue, with the passions it aroused in the North and the South, bit by bit compelled a realignment of parties. The Whigs party began to divide in 1852. This was a consequence of the deep split in sentiment over bondage. During the following few old ages most Southern Whigs joined the Democrats. Northern Whigs joined northern antislavery Democrats. In 1854 groups of northern work forces against bondage urged the creative activity of a new political party opposed to the continuance of bondage. This party has become today? s Republicans. During 1854 to1860, the slavery issue became such a hot subject that even Democrats were going divided among themselves. In 1860 four campaigners ran for the presidential term. Brekenridge was the Southern Democrats candidate, Douglas was the Northern Democrats candidate, Abraham Lincoln was the Republican campaigner, and Bell was the campaigner for a 3rd party. This was a really important election because the parties were so divided on the individual issue of bondage. Abraham Lincoln won with merely 40 % of the popular ballot. What makes this even more astonishing is that his full part of the popular ballot came entirely from the North. His name was non even on the ballot in the South. It was shortly after this election that the American Civil War between the North and South began. The Republicans emerged from the Civil War with great political strength. The Democrats were seen as the party of bondage and sezession. Republican control of the national authorities lasted for 72 old ages except for the 16 old ages when Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson were in the White House. The Great Depression of the thirtiess had a powerful influence on American political relations. The economic catastrophe helped Franklin D. Roosevelt, a Democrat, get elected as President in 1932. His first disposal developed what has been called the New Deal alliance. Because of the New Deal societal plans, 1000000s of Americans were attracted to the Democratic Party. Blacks, whose trueness had been with the Republicans since the yearss of Lincoln, shifted their support to the Democratic Party. In malice of the turbulences caused by bondage, the Civil War, and the Depression, the Democrats and the Republicans remained the two major parties. This Democratic Party continued to rule the Presidency for seven old ages after Roosevelt # 8217 ; s decease and, except for two Sessionss in 1947-48 and 1953-54 the Democrats controlled Congress through 1980. The New Deal alliance diminished, but did non destruct Republican power. Get downing with the election of Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952, t he Republicans regai ned much of the public trueness that was lost during the New Deal old ages. In 1980, Ronald Reagan, the Republican campaigner was elected President. The American two party system is alone from other two party systems. In Britain, for illustration, elections are held for members of Parliament. After the election, the leader of the winning party is named Prime Minister. This single serves both in Parliament as a legislator and in the Cabinet as an executive and policy shaper. This can non go on in the United States because of the constitutional separation of powers. A President can non function in Congress while in office. It is therefore possible for the Presidency and the Congress to be controlled by different parties, a state of affairs that can non happen in Britain. This control of the Congress by one party and the Presidency by another has by and large been the instance since World War II. The disadvantage of the American system is the dead end that can develop between the President and the Congress over policy when each under the control of a different party. The Democratic and Republican parties in the United States are unlike parties elsewhere in the universe. It is because our party system is really decentralized in construction and does non incorporate stiff subject and hierarchy. It would be merely a little hyperbole to state that the United States does non hold two parties but 100, two in each province. The parties among themselves are really diverse and their dockets vary from province to province. At the base of each party are those loyal to their party, that is those who regularly ballot for their party campaigners. The following degree consists of local party functionaries. These functionaries choose the party # 8217 ; s province officers. Each province organisation so names their provinces party representatives to a national commission. An executive commission is so selected from the members of the national commission. The national commission is headed by the national president, who is chosen by the party # 8217 ; s campaigne r for President, but must be approved by the national commission. Elected functionaries from the local to the national degree exert considerable influence on the operations of local, province, and national party machinery. In malice of the political domination of Democrats and Republicans, there have been several other party motions. Third parties have neer succeeded in winning the Presidency or the control of Congress. There are several grounds why 3rd parties have troubles in constructing a strong followers and acquiring elected. The most obvious is the strong clasp of the other two. As a regulation people resist alteration, and the places the 3rd parties advocate are normally subsequently adopted by one or both of the major parties. The larger two parties have become a runing pot of thoughts and tendencies. They have done this to reenforce their strength, and construct support. The legal obstructions in acquiring a name on the ballot besides adds to troubles. In most provinces it is required to hold a important per centum of the registered elector? s signatures, good in progress of the election, to acquire a campaigner on the ballot. With the victors take all doctrine that most provinces have adopted for the Electoral College, it is virtually impossible to acquire even one of the province? s electoral ballots for a presidential campaigner. Even if a 3rd party campaigner was to acquire the popular ballot in a few territories, all the electoral ballots for that province will travel to the campaigner that won the most precincts or territories. The election procedure and ordinances make it prohibitory for a 3rd party to win. Last, it is really expensive to run a political run. Unless a given 3rd party received five per centum of the ballots in the old election, there is no federal support allocated. This, combined with the run part bounds, restricts the chances for a campaigner to fund a run. That is, unless you are highly affluent. The intent that 3rd parties do function is as a tool for consciousness. They provide information and do the American elector to believe. By beat uping support for their issues they force the other two large parties to acknowledge new thoughts and issues. The American two party system is the consequence of a representative democracy. Unfortunately, today? s elector turnout is typically less than 30 % . I can? t aid but property that to the cynicism and misgiving of our authorities. I believe if the people felt they had a ground to vote and that their ballot truly mattered, they would be more likely to acquire out and ballot. Others are disgusted with the popularity competition that the elections have become as a consequence of mass media and Gallop poles. In recent old ages, I think Ross Perot came closest to doing a difference from a 3rd party point of view. The existent job I believe he had was the deficiency of elaborate planning. With all his graphs and Numberss he could certainly state us the jobs. But he fell abruptly of giving us any existent solutions. I do non see myself a Republican or Democrat and I would welcome an alternate. But looking around the universe, I think the party system we have is the best thing traveling. Oop s, there is that American Exceptionalism once more. 355