Party System

“Party System”

By: Arjay Calderon

A two-party system is a form of party system where two major political parties dominate the voting in nearly all elections. As a result, all, or nearly all, elected offices end up being held by candidates endorsed by the two major parties. Coalition governments occur only rarely in two-party systems, though each party may internally look like a coalition.

Under a two-party system, one of two major parties typically holds a majority in the legislature (or a legislative house in a bicameral system), and is referred to as the Majority Party. The other major party is referred to as the Minority Party. The leader of the majority party may be referred to as the majority leader, assisted by the majority whip, and the leader of the major opposition party may be referred to as the minority leader, assisted by the minority whip.

Two-party systems often develop spontaneously when the voting system used for elections disadvantages third or smaller parties, because the number of votes received for a party in a whole country is not directly related to the proportion of seats it receives in the country’s assembly/assemblies. While there is sometimes a coincidental relationship between votes cast and seats received in these systems, voters are not assured that their one vote will directly count toward an additional seat. The most widely-used system to have this effect, the simple plurality system (first past the post) often appears to pull systems into encouraging the survival of only two major parties, because it encourages compromising, where one insincerely votes for another party in the hopes that the other worse party will not be elected. It is also vulnerable to vote splitting. A third force can break in on the scene. The overall system re-stabilizes into two-party mode after a three-party interlude.

Some representation systems – such as those involving a single elected president or a mayor dominating the government – may encourage two-party systems, since ultimately the contest will pit the two most popular candidates against each other.

When constituencies (electoral) vote for candidates on the basis of a geographical constituency, all votes for candidates other than the winner count for nothing. This reflects another factor that encourages a two party system: smaller parties often cannot win enough votes in a constituency because they have smaller support and sometimes more scattered support than larger parties. Often a first-past-the-post electoral system and the election of candidates from geographical constituencies (districts) appear together in a single political system: this means that some smaller parties can garner a significant proportion of votes nationally, but receive few constituency seats and thus cannot realistically expect to compete overall on an equal footing with larger country-wide parties.

Advantages and disadvantages

The two-party system’s defenders argue that:

  • Uncommon, unconventional ideas and ideologies remain non-influential, so policies and governments do not change rapidly. (Others dispute whether such innate conservatism provides advantages. While smaller parties find this exceptionally frustrating, proponents of the two-party system suggest that it enhances stability while eventually allowing for ideas that gain favor to become politically influential.)
  • The dynamics of a two-party system drives both parties’ policies towards the position of a mythical median voter while remaining (hopefully) distinctive enough to motivate their core support. This “middle anchor” can work to prevent both parties from shifting too far to either side of the political spectrum.
  • Two-party systems, especially those where power often changes hands, appear less prone to revolutions, coups, or civil wars.
  • Two-party systems provide two distinct political parties that average people can choose between based on core principles and political ideology.
  • Two-party systems encourage unity among individuals of similar but not identical ideologies rather than encouraging segregation based on minor differences of opinion. This unity and its inherent necessity of civil compromise work to combat the dissonance that can arise in multi-party systems.
  • Bickering of narrowly based ideological factions in multi-party systems can lead to a torpid legislative process. These factions, if they gain enough influence via winning seats, can adopt a “by any means necessary” mentality of furthering their agenda which can include purposely blocking or delaying important legislation.
  • Narrowly based ideological factions can force the major parties to help them in exchange for their support. This can create a chaotic and fluctuating system of alliances that intensifies confusion among voters. Additionally, this “tie-breaker” influence minor parties achieve can serve to undermine the true positions of the major parties.
  • Narrowly based ideological factions can have a trickle down effect on a nation’s citizens. People can become so obsessed with the single issue parties they belong to (e.g. Environmental Party) that they begin to give very little thought to other issues that are of equal or even greater importance.
  • Multi-party systems have fractionalized legislatures that encourage the same fractionalization among a country’s electorate. Hence, encouraging segregation in government has a trickle down effect. This can be devastating in developing countries where violence is often an attractive form of negotiation. In developed countries this fractionalization can weaken national unity and patriotism, both of which are vital to the strength and defense of a sovereign nation.
  • The major parties are really broadly based coalitions that already represent a great diversity of views. By welcoming many different opinions and formulating positions based on those opinions, the major parties prevent themselves from becoming narrowly based ideological factions. At the same time however, as is the case in the United States, the major parties maintain an ideological and easily identifable identity. In the United States for instance, citizens do not have to be Political Scientists to identifty the ideological differences between the Republican and Democratic parties. Voters choose between the two major parties and find common ground with one another based on the party they support. Hence, encouraging unity and civil compromise rather than fractionalization in government encourages the same among the people.

Against the argument that the two-party system leads to more stable governance, critics of two-party systems argue that:

  • It is impossible to nominate, let alone elect, a moderate candidate. Among non-moderates (for instance, Democrats or Republicans in the US), a candidate’s campaign can become extremely complicated if he chooses to break with his party’s ideology on any specific issue (or concede that he does not subscribe to the beliefs of some members of his party). For this reason, many argue that the two-party system is conducive to hardliner ideology and extremist politics.
  • The ruling party’s majority may still be based on a smaller segment of the population than coalition governments due to lower turnout, and votes cast that do not lead to the desired representative. With lower voter turn-out plus only a chance of getting the representative voters want, the ultimate body of representatives were voted in with a rather small number of votes (such as 40%). The majority of this body (20% plus one) rules the nation.
  • Stability is not desirable in itself. The two parties in power resemble each other so much on the major issues and in their wealthy power base that the two party system more resembles a one party system.
  • Elections based on geographical district representation can become subject to gerrymander. Even without deliberate partisan gerrymander, legislative representation can skew wildly from the actual percentage of the vote a party wins.
  • The two-party system does produce stable governments, but this comes at the expense of the preferred outcome of stable democracy.
  • Two-party systems do not appear intrinsically more stable, citing such examples of stable democracies as Germany, that has representation through district elections, but becomes a multi-party system through a correcting format of the overall vote.

Observers also criticise two-party systems for the following alleged flaws:

  • Simplified (virtual two-way) elections motivate candidates to run negative campaigns, pointing out the flaws in the “other person” (usually the leader of the other party). Parties in such situations tend to stake out only those positions that appear necessary to differentiate themselves from their primary opponent, and not to concentrate on policies constructive or beneficial to citizens.
  • If one of the two parties becomes weak, a dominant party system may develop.
  • Debate in the assembly of the country can often become adversarial and not constructive, sometimes revolving around narrowly-perceived policy ideas, rather than larger political issues. Sometimes adversarial politics can lead to the opposition disagreeing with everything the government proposes (and vice versa) for the sake of disagreeing. This can lead to the blocking of important legislation, especially reforms that may benefit the country.
  • Campaing contributions can more easily corrupt a two-party system – since it has fewer players to receive donations.
  • In an effort to attract voters, each party will adopt planks of the other party’s platform, leading to the appearance in some skeptics’ minds of a one-party system.
  • First-past-the-post election systems tend to produce fewer female and minority representatives than proportional representation systems.
  • District elections tend to deliver a larger economic gap between members within its society. The have’s tend to have more and the have-not’s tend to have less in these nations.

34 Comments »

  1. Irene Said:

    well ar jay good research very objective information the only problem is i want to know what you think what do you think of the two party system and some revisit the time in our political history when we have the nacionalista and the liberal party. And through this research is it applicable in the country again as opposed to the multiparty system does restoring it will bring back political stabiity…..thanks and Godbless!!!!!

  2. don emmnanuel nolasco Said:

    TWO PARTY SYSTEM, a political party system in which a two party exist that will compete in the political positions in the government. Arjay has been a good researcher regarding the topic, I am ikpressed in the way he compares the two party system to the multiparty system. But I believe no party system will be benefecial to our country, a political party tht will serve the people and its struggles is still the best. Job wee done, JOLLIBEE BOY.

  3. jay-r lumbo Said:

    friend, a good research…
    you gave enough information about the topic about the party system
    a good job… well really a great job done….
    DON’T worry jolli-bee happy…

  4. raymund b babaran Said:

    hei pare,,nice one!!!!

    nice research and dicussion about the party system…….

    thank you!!!!

  5. khem visca Said:

    i really congratulate you for submitting a very nice article. i observed that it is well-researched and it conveys a lot of knowledge about the nature of the two-party system in the government.
    having a two-party system here in the Philippines creates several advantages and disadvantages to the people. the article explains that flaws and importances and thank you MR.Jollibee Boy for the informative article…

  6. king jhan lascano Said:

    very good research!!!!

    it seems like you spend time for your article…

    well we have so many political parties here in the philippines.

    i agree to have a 2 stong party system here coz i think magkakaroon ng UNITY, which is kailangang-kailangan na ating bansa

  7. Antalan, Carlo Mayo P. Said:

    the problem for having an unstable government and politics is that we have a bunch of turncoats sitting up there. why not suggest next time to ban “balimbings” in the government? hehe

  8. Kris John Said:

    wow well done!!! it was really infromative and entertaining…
    but i would like to read your personal comment about your topic, how does it specifically, through history, affects our government structure? But maybe such problems are not solely with the two parties competing but with those people within that party. People always have this, how would i say this? chance….? opportunity….? or hidden desire, that once in the position they tend to go ofloat with the stronger waves… the heck with being the minority, minority is still minority, you are opposing the majority and majority is majority…

  9. dana evangelista Said:

    actually, it is really substantial: a lot of informations:so many ideas. and i commend you on that. the only problem is that it is so technical. some of the terms are not familiar to me. however, i know that this is really important to me, especially in my course. i think i need to exert more effort to study on this.
    one more thing i have noticed is that i wasn’t able to see your reaction regarding this two-party system.

  10. melanie aldeon Said:

    ahm..its very long,hehe

    its informative though i cant uderstand some parts of it.

    u didnt give ur own views about ur topic
    wer’s ur stand?

    for me kc, i dnt agree with the multi-party system in our country
    it’s still better to have 2 strong parties, like the Liberal and the Nacionalista before..

  11. Lucero, Josephine C. Said:

    The article of Mr. Calderon was really an informative one. I learned lot of things about Party system.

    Nice chose of topic! You discussed it very well.

  12. Jesus Kristian King P. Calugay Said:

    wow! very nice, very nice! from the looks of it you really flip every rock on this one. Showing both positive and negative sides of the two-party system. quite impressive Arjay. creating and developing ideal systematic strategies in pilitics is one of the things individuals like us must posses. this will be a great help in future references. Nicely done, Arjay.

  13. Katigbak, Karla Elaine L. Said:

    Talking about Political Party is difficult for me because I can’t understand it that much…
    When I saw your article, It seems that it is interesting because it’s too long. When I finished reading it then I found that it is well research because of the information that you said and some of the words that you used that I need to look at the dictionary …
    Well, good work! I hope that next time I will hear your side…

  14. Vanessa Karen Fajardo Said:

    The article stated a very complete view on two-party system. We may say that our government has many political parties and we don’t know what to believe into because they all have different views in politics and other matters. We may also say that these political parties may contribute for the development of our country. Well done!!!

  15. kristine tyrol rosales Said:

    arjay, one thing be sure it hasnt been copy-paste h? really, its my 1st time to encounter such article from you..y is it you haven’t done that before?hehehe joke lng,tol!

  16. salome saro Said:

    What I think is, party system is not as important as its goal. Party system should fit the personality of the Filipino people in order to enable the system to adapt to the rapid changing of the society. About the article itself, I notice the technicality, somehow its informative in the sense that the topic is well-defined including its structure, function, and of course, the advantages and the disadvantages. But I can’t feel the personal touch of the writer in some point… maybe he’s too serious for that… hehehe!!!!!!!!!

  17. joyce 'jucee' victorino Said:

    well arjay, i appreciate your article but somehow some ‘factors’ are lacking. i think you only define what a two-party system is along with its advantages and disadvantages. touching this topic interests me but i didn’t see the thing that i want to see in your aticle. anybody could find out what a two party system is, its strenghts and weaknesses by just merely searching it over through the internet. i just want to see your own view or perception about the topic and its relevance to our country. i know you can do better next time and elaborate more on this matter..

  18. Ma. Shiela H. Garcia Said:

    d first time i saw your article.. npa-whoa aq sa haba.. but it’s really a nice article because it gave me some knowledge about the two- party system and about its advantages and disadvantages… kaya lang.. I have not read any personal comments from you.. e sayang naman kasi dapat may comment ka rin about this..para kahit pa’no may effort pa rin.. tsaka para mas maunawaan namin yung topic mo eh kaya lang copy paste lang po kasi eh…

  19. lea baluyot Said:

    whew!!! Nice article Arjay. Very informative. It gives a clear information about the two-party system. It needs more comment or opinion of whom that discusses the topic. A personal view is essential to influence on what are you talking about. Sources of the information should be taken into account, because as a reader your article lacks credibility.
    To sum it up, the article is done well.

  20. Kristine Joie Salazar Said:

    Honestly speaking when i read your article, i didn’t attempt to finish it. I found it so

    boring. I’m sorry but I have to say this.

    First, look at this, you hav a very interesting topic but you were not able to justify it.

    Second, it seems that you just copied and pasted from your source and lastly, please think

    of the purpose why you to write an article? no just to get good grades but the ESSENCE of

    writing it is for you to practice how we as Political Science student can actually think and

    comment for a certain issue.

    Of course you may get or copy some cliche on your source but not the whole source itself.

    An how can we possibly say that it is your own article if you just copied and pasted it on

    whaterver source you depended on.

  21. that’s a pretty long article…

    very very (x100) informative…

    although i would have just wanted your stance on the topic… your own opinion…

    good job arjay!🙂

  22. your article was highly informative but….it’s really hard to absorb!! And I think you forgot to include your opinion…

  23. Brigette Servino Said:

    Wow!!! ARJAY!
    Very good research but I’m looking sana for your own conviction since it’s a personal article pero yan yung style mo so why not??? Ang haba talaga ng article mo kaya napagod akong basahin and lots of instances na hindi ko na talaga maintindihan pa ung ibang parts. For me, naging complicated talaga ung topic mo, not the topic itself but the way you presented it to us. But anyway, sobra yung effort, alam ko talagang pinaghandaan mo.

  24. 2nel_sanchez Said:

    –on: shen,she’,arvie & kristian—
    well nice articles…i’ve seen lots of infos and also ur own ideas & opinions…medio nbitin lng me sa opinion mo arvie but it’s good…

    –on: raymund & arjay—-
    hanep…walastikin mga articles ninyo ah…i thnk mrminag nose bleeding after they hve read the articles…prang copy paste lng ah…whehehe…but i appreciate ung atricles nio….it’s very substantial & informative but merong kulang eh…un bang personal view nio s topic nio…i think mas ma aapreciate ng mga classm8s nten ang articles nio if nilagyan nio ng own opinions nio…right classm8????
    —-un lng…god bless & yngatz to all…have a nice day ahead!!! (“,)—-

  25. kristine tyrol rosales Said:

    ok arjay, job well done i commend you for that, one thing r u sure you dont copy-paste it h?kase nkita ko sa wikipedia eh..hehe
    2 party system.yah its good for us since we can actually study thecharacter of each politician and it is really very responsive in nature.. however one thing i notice is that it limits the nature of democracy…gets?
    another one, wat if i dont like the two principle presented by the two sides, where should i go?
    take a look at theexmple of pup politics, im not a member of samasa nor kalipi and whenever im ask what is my side i cant answr and criticized by that, meaning nkkainsulto kase wla nga eh..ala tlg ko pinpnign but then i have to choose dw coz thats a real pol sci studen- with a stand..
    i blieve din nmn n too many parties but then 2 party system is not enaf…cguro 3 pwede..i min my 3rd party..heto mgiispeech ako.
    third parties shouldn’t really need an introduction. In my opinion they should be widely welcomed as an exciting and necessary part of political activity and policy advocacy. The fact that they’re not has inspired me to go ahead and set down some of the purposes and reasons-for-being of third parties and the benefits and services they provide.
    The primary purpose of third-party candidates running for public office is to call attention to otherwise ignored, misrepresented, or even suppressed principles or issues. .** There are usually MORE than two sides to every issue – WAY more. And yet despite their hype and hysteria, when the smoke clears, the “major” parties often turn out to be on the same unprincipled side anyway.

    The secondary purpose is to get the major parties to adopt the most important portions of the 3rd party platform as part of theirs

    Third parties give the far-sighted voter a way to make a visible statement and have a greater impact on the direction the country moves far into the future.
    They give the principled and knowledgeable voter a chance to cast his vote without feeling dirty afterwards, even feeling good, especially since every vote really counts to help a 3rd party get or keep ballot access (it’s enormously important for helping a 3rd party get on the ballot in the future).

    They work to enhance the prospects and credibility of lesser-known ideas and lesser-known candidates, especially the 3rd party’s state and local candidates, to gain and solidify ballot access, to expand the party’s influence, to develop an ever-larger national presence, and maybe even to replace or supplant one of the so-called “major” parties.

    They serve as what calls an ” ’emotional bridge’ for voters who have given up on supporting one major party but are not yet ready to vote for the other,” and in so doing they don’t just lure voters to the polls; in the long run they even help prevent “stagnation and tyranny,” (see Third parties give sources of leverage and ideas to major-party loyalists to “keep the pressure on” their party to adopt or emphasize positions or principles it tends to ignore, abandon or advocate much too feebly.

    They provide a vehicle for like-minded people to meet, share ideas, brainstorm, strategize, develop new approaches to public policy, and spin off subgroups to raise public awareness of, and campaign about, specific issues even on a local basis.

    Their presence and activity give whoever does win office more latitude and public support in choosing new or different public policy approaches or solutions to existing or anticipated problems, challenges, concerns or crises. THIRD PARTIES ARE WILLING TO TACKLE THIRD RAILS. SOMEbody’s got to be available to do it!

    They often work to encourage changes in election laws where the 3rd party, its supporters and other voters would like to see fair and equal ballot access for all parties, or runoff elections whenever no one gets a clear majority, or cross-endorsement of candidates, or preferential voting, or proportional representation, or ease of casting write-in votes, or choice of “NOTA” (none of the above). After all, stupid, unfair, even outrageous state and local election and ballot access laws and enforcement methods have gone unchallenged long enough in hundreds of jurisdictions.

    They actually IMPROVE the health of the “two-party system.”

    They give the otherwise ignored, used, abused, betrayed, disgusted, disappointed, frustrated, victimized, insulted, and/or outraged voter a chance to cast a vote without feeling dirty afterwards, a reason to go to the polls AT ALL in the first place, and maybe even to come out of the voting booth feeling GREAT!

    “…when the variety and number of political parties increases, the chance for oppression, factionalism, and nonskeptical acceptance of ideas decreases.” -katie

  26. katie rosales Said:

    ok mgnd..be sure wl yn s WIKIPEDIA ah?
    2 party system.yah its good for us since we can actually study thecharacter of each politician and it is really very responsive in nature.. however one thing i notice is that it limits the nature of democracy…gets?
    another one, wat if i dont like the two principle presented by the two sides, where should i go?
    take a look at theexmple of pup politics, im not a member of samasa nor kalipi and whenever im ask what is my side i cant answr and criticized by that, meaning nkkainsulto kase wla nga eh..ala tlg ko pinpnign but then i have to choose dw coz thats a real pol sci studen- with a stand..
    i blieve din nmn n too many parties but then 2 party system is not enaf…cguro 3 pwede..i min my 3rd party..heto mgiispeech ako.
    third parties shouldn’t really need an introduction. In my opinion they should be widely welcomed as an exciting and necessary part of political activity and policy advocacy. The fact that they’re not has inspired me to go ahead and set down some of the purposes and reasons-for-being of third parties and the benefits and services they provide.
    The primary purpose of third-party candidates running for public office is to call attention to otherwise ignored, misrepresented, or even suppressed principles or issues. .** There are usually MORE than two sides to every issue – WAY more. And yet despite their hype and hysteria, when the smoke clears, the “major” parties often turn out to be on the same unprincipled side anyway.

    The secondary purpose is to get the major parties to adopt the most important portions of the 3rd party platform as part of theirs

    Third parties give the far-sighted voter a way to make a visible statement and have a greater impact on the direction the country moves far into the future.
    They give the principled and knowledgeable voter a chance to cast his vote without feeling dirty afterwards, even feeling good, especially since every vote really counts to help a 3rd party get or keep ballot access (it’s enormously important for helping a 3rd party get on the ballot in the future).

    They work to enhance the prospects and credibility of lesser-known ideas and lesser-known candidates, especially the 3rd party’s state and local candidates, to gain and solidify ballot access, to expand the party’s influence, to develop an ever-larger national presence, and maybe even to replace or supplant one of the so-called “major” parties.

    They serve as what calls an ” ’emotional bridge’ for voters who have given up on supporting one major party but are not yet ready to vote for the other,” and in so doing they don’t just lure voters to the polls; in the long run they even help prevent “stagnation and tyranny,” (see Third parties give sources of leverage and ideas to major-party loyalists to “keep the pressure on” their party to adopt or emphasize positions or principles it tends to ignore, abandon or advocate much too feebly.

    They provide a vehicle for like-minded people to meet, share ideas, brainstorm, strategize, develop new approaches to public policy, and spin off subgroups to raise public awareness of, and campaign about, specific issues even on a local basis.

    Their presence and activity give whoever does win office more latitude and public support in choosing new or different public policy approaches or solutions to existing or anticipated problems, challenges, concerns or crises. THIRD PARTIES ARE WILLING TO TACKLE THIRD RAILS. SOMEbody’s got to be available to do it!

    They often work to encourage changes in election laws where the 3rd party, its supporters and other voters would like to see fair and equal ballot access for all parties, or runoff elections whenever no one gets a clear majority, or cross-endorsement of candidates, or preferential voting, or proportional representation, or ease of casting write-in votes, or choice of “NOTA” (none of the above). After all, stupid, unfair, even outrageous state and local election and ballot access laws and enforcement methods have gone unchallenged long enough in hundreds of jurisdictions.

    They actually IMPROVE the health of the “two-party system.”

    They give the otherwise ignored, used, abused, betrayed, disgusted, disappointed, frustrated, victimized, insulted, and/or outraged voter a chance to cast a vote without feeling dirty afterwards, a reason to go to the polls AT ALL in the first place, and maybe even to come out of the voting booth feeling GREAT!

    “…when the variety and number of political parties increases, the chance for oppression, factionalism, and nonskeptical acceptance of ideas decreases.” -katie

  27. Shiela_Coderis Said:

    Arjay! whoa! what a great article!

    But to tell u honestly, i really had a hard time
    absorbing the informations especially
    the message u are relating to us! and 1 thing that
    i’m looking in your article, is you own side ’bout this topic!

    …however, for me, in this article, you really showed
    your interest in politics!

    Anyway…. you really did a very good job!

  28. Emil Lorilla Samaniego Said:

    Please, do accept my apology for posting a comment just this time. But I will try my full best not to happen this again next time…Now, talking about the article, yeah, it seems that Mr. Calderon really did exert a bunch of effort to his module about two-party system. Kudos! But where is your view? This may sound very cliche, but that is the very thing maybe all of us- your classmates- want you to keep in mind, but ‘a la defensa’ to you, i believe that your situation is considerable knowing that you are the first to post an article… because of the limited time, you, therefore, tend just to gather different articles about two-party in the web, then pick those phrases you think paralleled to your own ideas of two-party system then, artistically and intellectually, you (well… i don’t want to use the word “paste”-it would be very offending- but allow me to use the word “glue” he he, just joking!)…Okay, you glued it in a Word document, then a little connecting and revising of some sort, presto! the job is done. However, Mr. Calderon as what i said, okay lang:-)

    Now, giving my standpoint about two-party system in the Philippines. (Well, this is just my ‘current’ state of mind, therefore it could change…) I don’t want a two party system in the Philippines, why? because it will limit FREEDOM! Freedom to believe in another ideology or to your own-created ideology. Guys, yeah, a two-party system can be beneficial for the stabilization of Government especially in a parliamentary system (which I believe the best for this country), but if the freedom is at risk just for stabilization, futile! Vain is that stabilization! actually, i believe that the government is not really stable if the FREEDOM is lacking in a state… And in the case of two-party system, if this will become part of the constitution, then it will destroy the other provision such as freedom of speech etc. For, coinciding to Ms. Rosales comment’s, the two-party system will prohibit the multitudes of abuse sectors in the country to have voice/representative in the legislature in the light of their self-chosen political ideology from the set of not just two political ideologies that will be present if the country will adhere to two-party principle, but to many political ideologies present in the country, actually, they can create their own ideology if they want to.

    However, a critical question will be present if we’ll cite the cases of the countries having two-party system, such as United States of America (Republicans and Democrats). An average person will think that, why in America the status is two-party but look at them they are the cradles of liberty? Well in response to that, allow me to give the countries having two- party system, I get this in the web, they are, the United States, New Zealand, Australia , United Kingdom and Austria. Scrutinizing them, i came to an assumption that these countries do not need multi-party system as an expression of their liberty to think freely especially in the case of united States, because the peoples of these countries are already enlightened as to what particular set of ideologies, their will, personality and interest are aligned to and as what the case tells, on their own two-party systems. Meaning the freedom is not oppressed because there is this great consolidation/unity among peoples that these two parties are the only ones they want in their country, these two parties are the highest embodiment of their political freedom. However, it would take a long complex process of political maturity and political history for a particular state be placed in this scenario, and in the case of the frigid political history of the United StaTE, i guess, they already attained it, maybe that’s why the two-party system is effective to them, however, I am not yet assured on this for this is just my assumption, who knows the USA politics be subject to a momentous shift of history and the Republican and the Democrat disintegrate to some sort…well, just sort of prophesizing he he… However, in the case of the Philippines, i believe that our country is not yet in this stage of political maturity that the peoples separated by waters and mountains of the earth, be unified as to what particular sets of political ideologies their interest, will, mind and personality coincide to. Therefore, two-party system in the Philippines? Not yet… In the parliament? Not yet… And besides there can still be unity in the legislature though we have multi-party system, because the law allows that those political parties having least representation in Congress even those big ones, can combine to other political parties to form coalitions to meet a specific political need without sacrificing the parties’ own political ideologies in the process. And in every case there are only two rivals in Congress the majority and the minority, so these two can be deemed as the two parties on the Congress, like the Democrats and the Republicans.

    Okay, mahaba na ata…nakakahiya naman. Adieu guys! Kudos for this blog I like this.

  29. Gerald "Lezard Valehe" Mesina Said:

    well well

    im am very surprise to discover something about your blog ,hmmm

    Is it really your idea or you just take it from somewhere

    as a student of politics you should not risk every plan that you have

    Maybe i will just paint that black okey

    Maybe that is what our country need to be able to apply those whatever setup they want to build in the political systyme of the phils.

    It is good to have this systme but the only problem is that when one member fails to move with the plan his current political career will end

    ayoko tlagang lagayan nag comment kc eh

    your sure its yours ?????

  30. manelle Said:

    ui…..anng haba naman nun tol….

    well said,pero di ko nakita ang
    opinion mo….

    resourceful!!!!!!

  31. ralph julious villamor Said:

    pre ang haba nito!

    good research!!

    nice jay!

  32. ralph julious villamor Said:

    wala ko masabi eh.

  33. 2nel_sanchez Said:

    ei..2nd comment n 2…kc nman namali me nung una..well un nga good article…it was informative and a substantail article…but..un nga l ung own opinion moh…n mas mkakaganda ng article mo…ge..godbless!(“,)

  34. sheilla ramos Said:

    ei…!arjay… ang haba nman poh ng article moh…
    pero owkei nman poh xa…!

    nice research…!
    dami koh nlaman bout two party system…

    pero mas owkei sana xa kung nilagay moh ung own opinion moh bout sa article moh..db?!
    thanx poh…


{ RSS feed for comments on this post} · { TrackBack URI }

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: