The reason why the United States has not formed a third party is mainly due to the design of its political system and the particularity of its electoral system. The two-party system is deeply rooted, and the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have a solid foundation in all aspects such as politics, economy, and society. In addition, the single-member district election method makes it difficult for small parties to gain enough support, resulting in voters often choosing major parties with a chance of winning rather than small parties. This situation further suppresses the development space of the third party, making it difficult for it to gain a foothold nationwide. Coupled with the disadvantages of resources such as funds and media coverage, small parties are even more difficult to compete. In short, historical, institutional and realistic factors jointly affect the party structure in the United States, and it is difficult for a third party in the true sense to emerge.
The reason why the United States has not formed a third party is mainly due to the design of its political system and the particularity of its electoral system. The two-party system is deeply rooted, and the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have a solid foundation in all aspects such as politics, economy, and society. In addition, the single-member district election method makes it difficult for small parties to gain enough support, resulting in voters often choosing major parties with a chance of winning rather than small parties. This situation further suppresses the development space of the third party, making it difficult for it to gain a foothold nationwide. Coupled with the disadvantages of resources such as funds and media coverage, small parties are even more difficult to compete. In short, historical, institutional and realistic factors jointly affect the party structure in the United States, and it is difficult for a third party in the true sense to emerge.
Trump and Musk have a falling out. This happened because Musk was kicked out of Trump's ruling team, and then bluntly criticized Trump's policies on X, and also brought up old accounts, mentioning Trump's relationship with Epstein. Trump was not to be outdone, and threatened Musk in his speech that if he supported the Democratic Party's opponent, then wait and see. In addition, Trump also made it clear that the relationship between the two was over and there was no more delay.
Institutional barriers: the structural dilemma of third parties
- The "winner takes all" electoral college system
The formation of the US electoral college system has a complex historical background, in which the slavery compromise factor played an important role. In the early days of the founding of the country, in order to gain greater political power, the southern slave states hoped to include slaves in the population calculation, but did not want to give slaves equal political rights. The final compromise was that when calculating the population of each state to determine the number of electors, each slave was counted as three-fifths of a person. This institutional design balanced the interests of the North and the South to a certain extent, but it also laid the groundwork for the subsequent election pattern.
"Winner takes all" is the core rule of the electoral college system. Except for Nebraska and Maine, the remaining states and the District of Columbia all use this method to allocate electoral votes. This means that in a state, no matter how many popular votes a third-party candidate wins, as long as he fails to win the most votes in the state, he will not be able to win any electoral votes in that state. For example, in the 2016 election, Green Party candidate Jill Stein received more than 1 million popular votes, but because she failed to win a majority of votes in any state, she ultimately did not receive a single electoral vote. Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and Republican candidate Donald Trump, on the other hand, received a large number of electoral votes by virtue of their victories in various states.
This rule makes it difficult for small parties to convert a considerable number of popular votes nationwide into electoral votes, thus posing no substantial threat to the two-party monopoly. The Electoral College system strengthens the two-party system, because voters often take this rule into account when voting, believing that only by supporting the Democratic or Republican parties can they have a chance to influence the election results, further compressing the living space of third parties.
- Single-member district simple majority system
The United States uses a single-member district simple majority system for congressional and local elections, which systematically excludes small parties. Under this system, only one representative is elected in each constituency, and candidates only need to obtain the most votes in the constituency to be elected, without having to obtain more than half of the votes. This leads to a situation where "majority wins all", making it difficult for small parties to obtain representative seats in the federal and state legislatures.
Compared with the proportional representation system, the single-member district simple majority system is extremely disadvantageous to small parties. Under the proportional representation system, political parties allocate seats according to the proportion of votes they receive, and small parties have more opportunities to obtain a certain number of seats and thus make their voices heard on the political stage. Under the single-member district system in the United States, even if a small party obtains a certain proportion of votes in a certain district, it cannot obtain seats in that district as long as it does not have the most votes.
Although there are more than 420 political parties in the United States, the Democratic and Republican parties occupy an absolute dominant position in Congress and state legislatures. It is difficult for small parties to break through the obstacles set by the two parties and gain sufficient political influence under this system. For example, in the election of the House of Representatives, the competition in each district is extremely fierce. Small party candidates often lack resources and support and find it difficult to compete with candidates from the two parties. In the end, they can only watch the candidates from the two parties get elected.
- Ballot access and resource monopoly
Third parties face many procedural obstacles and resource disadvantages in participating in US elections. States have set harsh conditions for ballot access. For example, some states require candidates to obtain a certain number of voter signatures before their names can be included on the ballot. Take the 500,000 signature threshold as an example. This is a huge challenge for third parties. Collecting so many signatures requires a lot of manpower, material resources and time, and third parties often lack these resources.
The mature fundraising network of the two parties has also formed a financial barrier. In the long-term political development process, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have established a wide range of fundraising channels and supporter groups. They are able to obtain a lot of financial support from various interest groups such as large enterprises, consortiums, and trade unions for campaign activities. In contrast, it is difficult for third parties to obtain enough funds to carry out effective campaigns. The lack of funds restricts third parties in publicity, organizing activities, etc., making it difficult to compete with the two parties.
The focus of mainstream media has also exacerbated the "voicelessness" phenomenon of third parties. During the election, the media often focuses a lot of reporting resources on Democratic and Republican candidates, and pays less attention to third-party candidates. This makes it difficult for third-party candidates to convey their policy propositions and ideas to voters through the media, further reducing their popularity and influence among voters. In the absence of understanding, voters are more inclined to choose familiar candidates from the two parties, thus forming a vicious circle, making it increasingly difficult for third parties to make breakthroughs in elections.
Self-adjustment and future of the two-party system
- Inclusive strategy of loose political parties
The Democratic Party and the Republican Party in the United States have demonstrated strong ideological tolerance with their low-threshold party membership system, effectively absorbing the development space of the third party. The two parties have extremely loose definitions of party membership, and people can be regarded as party members as long as they vote for the party. This low threshold setting allows groups with different political positions to find opportunities to speak out within the party.
The coexistence of factions within the party is significant, and multiple positions such as moderates and radicals coexist harmoniously within the two parties. There are both progressives who advocate social welfare reform and moderates who prefer traditional economic policies within the Democratic Party; there are also conservatives who support the free market and centrists who emphasize social issues within the Republican Party. This inclusiveness allows voters with different political demands to promote the realization of their own propositions within the two parties without having to set up a new party, thereby greatly compressing the living space of the third party.
- Steady-state expectations under the constitutional framework
The two-party system in the United States has super stability in the constitutional system, and this feature has been fully verified in historical crises. During major crises such as civil war and epidemics, elections have never been interrupted, and the two-party system has always maintained a relatively stable operation.
The electoral system, federal structure and judicial system constitute the "iron triangle" that maintains the two-party system. The rules of "winner takes all" and simple majority in single constituencies in the electoral system fundamentally guarantee the dominant position of the two parties in elections. Under the federal structure, the distribution of power between the states and the federal government enables the two parties to exert influence at different levels and consolidate their position. The judicial system provides legal protection for the two-party system and ensures the legitimacy and stability of the election process.
Although there are calls for reform from time to time, these calls are difficult to shake the foundation of the two-party system. In the next 20-30 years, the third party will still face structural obstacles that are difficult to break through. The resources, voter base and political influence accumulated by the two parties in their long-term development make it difficult for the third party to compete with them. At the same time, the institutional design under the constitutional framework will continue to maintain the dominant position of the two-party system, and the road for the third party to break through is still long and difficult.
