Despite an active political presence, only two parties – the Democrats and the Republicans – dominate the modern American political process, between them fielding every candidate who has become president since the mid-1800s. Why, in a democracy, only two parties dominate- they ? ? What about the other 52 parties, many of which contributed ideas and policies that have become pillars of American politics and law? The answer, according to historians and academics, lies in the political process that relegated third parties to the sidelines and in the nature of the parties themselves. The Green Party, Reform Party, Libertarians, Constitution Party, and Natural Law Party currently represent the most active third parties in the United States. Say no to plagiarism. Get a Custom Essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get Original Essay All of these parties fielded presidential candidates in the last election. Ralph Nader, an independent presidential candidate in 2004, made his name as a consumer advocate and as a two-time Green Party presidential candidate. As the Green Party candidate in 2000, he received more than 2 million votes, placing third behind Al Gore and George W. Bush. But the controversy has marred the Green Party's achievements. Democrats blamed Nader for causing Gore's defeat by siphoning votes simply through his presence in the race. The Green Party's platform focuses largely on the environment, while the Libertarians, the nation's third-largest political party and oldest third party, believe in a reduced role for government. They argue that government should only serve to protect citizens. Although no Libertarian Party candidate has ever become president, several of its members hold elected positions in state and local governments. The American Taxpayers Party, which changed its name to the Constitution Party in 2000, advocates a strict interpretation of the Constitution and more power to citizens. States and localities. Its most popular candidate, Howard Phillips, ran for office in 1992 but received less than 1 percent of the vote. Third Party Success and Influence The most successful party in an election has been the Reform Party, which in 1992 nominated Texas billionaire Ross Perot. his presidential candidate. Perot ran on a platform advocating reducing the federal budget deficit, an issue previously ignored in the election, but one that would become a major plank of almost every presidential campaign since then. Perot received 19 percent of the vote. “He was the first candidate to significantly float the idea that the deficit was a bad thing,” said historian Michael Beschloss. "By the time Bill Clinton was elected this fall, if he hadn't done something to reduce the deficit, he would have been in big trouble and a lot of it was Ross Perot's fault." their minor presence in Congress – currently, only one U.S. senator and one member of the House of Representatives are independent. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, socialists popularized the women's suffrage movement. They advocated for child labor laws in 1904 and, with the Populist Party, introduced the notion of a 40-hour workweek, leading to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. " What's happening is that third parties are acting like gadflies,” said Sean Wilentz, director of the American Studies Program at Princeton University.“There will be an issue that is neglected or deliberately excluded from the national debate because neither party wants to deal with the political criticism it would generate. A classic example is slavery. » “It's kind of bittersweet,” he added. “[Third parties] are the ones who raise issues that no one wants to raise and in doing so they change the political debate and even the policy, but they themselves as a political force disappear. Voters often fear that a vote for a third-party candidate will be “pointless” because they are unlikely to win. Additionally, according to Beschloss, third-party parties often organize around a single personality or issue, which can lead to lower popularity among candidates. voters. Perhaps the biggest obstacle facing third-party candidates is the winner-takes-all system. In most states, the presidential candidate with the highest percentage of votes receives all of the state's electoral votes. “There is no reward for second place,” said John F. Bibby, a professor at the University of Wisconsin and co-author of the book “Two Parties — Or More?” The American Party System. “With just one president elected, if you want to have a chance of winning the states, which are all awarded on a winner-take-all basis, again, you have no chance. The incentive is to form broad-based parties that have a chance of winning in the Electoral College. In their book, Bibby and co-author L. Sandy Maisel cite Ross Perot in 1992, who had broad appeal but not enough to win a ballot. condition completely. Third-party candidates are also at a disadvantage because of federal campaign finance laws, rules that dictate who can participate in presidential debates and a lack of media attention. “It’s very difficult for third parties to get media coverage,” Bibby said. “At Nader's last race, the questions they asked him were: 'Why are you running?' » (came) all the time, not on the merits of his campaign. » Additionally, a significant amount of paperwork is required to become a viable candidate. When Ralph Nader announced in February 2004 that he would seek the presidential nomination, he was asked to collect 1.5 million signatures in every state to appear on the ballot. Deadlines for these signatures begin as early as May 2004. Campaign finance rules state that a political party can only obtain government funding to run a race if it received a certain percentage of votes in the previous election . This often leaves third-party candidates to finance their own campaigns. With less media coverage, candidates must find other ways to raise awareness to raise the millions of dollars needed for their campaigns to succeed. Political analyst and comedian Bill Maher expressed disbelief that Americans would happily accept only two choices for president. “It’s stupid,” he said, “that a country that prides itself on being able to only allow two.” Others argue that the two-party system promotes stability by avoiding more divided government. “The U.S. Constitution was written long before parties were born. The framers were suspicious of parties,” said Sean Wilentz. “But once parties emerged, the system the designers put in place tended to encourage coalitions that fight and those coalitions tend to be two in number." According to Wilentz, over the decades, Democrats and Republicans have become two fundamental and contrasting ideas about how the