Why are there two parties?

[Chino]

I don't really understand why we have democrats and republicans. It seems like it would make a lot more sense if everyone that has anything to do with politics was just person with their own set of views. Why categorize everyone?

[7StringedBeast]

It's easier to sell and promote that way.

[j]

Yeah I think it's kind of the natural progression of a system of democracy like ours.  I mean if you look at a lot of European countries that have "multi-party" systems, usually there are two that are perennially at the forefront.

-J

[Adami]

Because one person can be crushed. 10,000 people make more of a voice.


I hate the two party system. But if it was just individuals, no one would get anywhere because they'd have no help.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

This is a Bell Curve:


Imagine that the left side of the graph represents the 'liberal' left, and the rights side represents the 'conservative' right.

The extremes of both ends being Communist and Fascist, respectively.

The small gaps on the extreme ends of each side represent the small number of people who are that extreme (pay close attention, EPICVIEW).

Because parties base their platforms on ideology, it stands to reason that they will choose one side of the chart over the other. Namely, Democrats choose the left, Republicans the right.

The goal of a political party is to get their candidate/party into power. To do so, you need the most votes. These two parties represent the vast, moderate majority of Americans, who only slightly lean left or right. That will be the large portions towards the middle.

That's why we have two parties; it's easier to represent ideology

[rumborak]

Bell curve is one reason, definitely. A lot of people have very similar views.

But, there's also the effect that in the American system, a vote for a small party hurts the other players in the same corner of the spectrum. That's why the Republicans have been known to sponsor the Green Party covertly since it would siphon votes away from the Democracts (while never being a danger of becoming powerful), and I wouldn't be surprised if the Democrats are doing the same for the next election with the Tea Party, to have them siphon off votes from the Republicans.
European governments are parliaments that allow coalitions, and thus voting for a small(er) party just means that will enter a coalition with its neighbor to achieve absolute majority. That makes voting for a small party a viable option without shooting your political spectrum in the foot.

rumborak

[PlaysLikeMyung]

If we are going to have parties, I'd love for us to move to a proportional representation system, but America will never endorse it

[ack44]

It's all magic.

[El Barto]

It seems like it usually just boils down to two parties.  I've looked over quite a few congressional make-ups, and there are always two dominant parties.  Every once in a while one of them will fissure, and you'll have 1 big party and 3 or 4 minority ones, and then they'll all consolidate after a few years.  I'd like to think that this is what's currently happening with the GOP, but I really don't think the Tea Party is any different.  That's really more of a re-branding more than anything else.

Take a look at this incarnation of the House from 1854:

Democratic Party    84    -73    33.3%
American Party    62    +62    24.6%
Whig Party            60    -11    23.8%
Republican Party    46    +46    18.3%

Then 2 years later:

Democratic Party    132    +48    55.7%
Republican Party    90    +44    38.0%
American Party    14    -48    6.0%
Independent    1    +1    0.4%

Smaller parties got gobbled up,  and that was pretty much where we became essentially a 2 party system.  There are sporadic minor parties that get a few seats from time to time, but they're usually based on a fairly narrow platform and don't last long.