Introduction

The US political party system has displayed remarkable stability, unmatched by any other country. The US has had a two-party system with the same two political parties for over 150 years. Since the 1860s, all presidents and nearly all senators and representatives have been members of one of these two parties.

In recent years, however, dissatisfaction with the parties has been high. A record number of Americans now describe themselves as independents. Certain groups have arisen—for example, the Tea Party—which some believed might evolve into a third political party. All of these developments have led some observers to believe that the time is right for a third party.

These observers are probably wrong. Although a multiplicity of parties is the rule in most European democracies, the hurdles for third parties have always been high in the US. At the moment the two parties are as dominant in winning elections as they have been in any period. However, this electoral dominance does not mean that the American party system has been static. The parties are in the midst of several dramatic changes: (1) the Republican and Democratic parties have become highly polarised, ideological parties with significant differences in worldview, (2) the two parties have weak discipline and fractures within their ranks, and (3) the two political parties now have significant competition from outside groups in terms of raising and spending funds on political campaigns. All of these developments have made the challenge of governing significantly more difficult.

This article will lay out why, despite evidence to the contrary, there is little prospect of the emergence of a third party and how the above-mentioned developments in the political parties present challenges to effective governance.

The hard road for a third party

US politics has several features that have always made the successful formation of a third party difficult. In all federal and the vast majority of state elections, the country has single-member districts and does not have proportional representation. The extensive size of the country, combined with the winner-take-all aspects of congressional elections and the Electoral College, mean that a party must not only be strong enough to win in individual states and districts, but also have electoral strength in several regions of the US. Add to these systemic factors that many states have erected obstacles to ballot access and it is clear that the road to success for a third party will always be a difficult one.

Today the two major parties are as ensconced as they have ever been. Of the 535 members of Congress, only 2 senators do not run under the banner of either party, and once in office, those 2 choose to caucus with the Democratic Party. In the 49 states where party labels are attached to candidates, only 35 of the over 7,300 state legislators belong to a party other than the Democrats or Republicans (National Conference of State Legislatures 2015).

This strength of the two parties’ elective fortunes contrasts with the growing number of Americans who describe themselves as independents rather than supporters of one of the major parties. The number of independents grew in the 1960s and early 1970s and then plateaued for 30 years, but it has again risen significantly in the past 10 years. The latest aggregation of polling by Gallup for 2014 showed that 43 % of US citizens identified themselves as independents, 30 % as Democrats and 26 % as Republicans (Jones 2015). Similarly, in 2014 Pew showed that 39 % were independents, 32 % Democrats and 23 % Republicans (Pew Research Center 2015).

The rising number of independents gives hope to those advocating a third party. However, research has shown that most of these self-described independents lean towards one party or the other and that their voting patterns are regularly for that party. The percentage of ‘true independents’, who do not regularly support one party or the other, is small, by certain estimates 10 %–15 % of voters at most (Petrocik 2009, 562–72).

The hopes of those advocating a third party notwithstanding, the changes in the American party system do not point towards the emergence of a third party. Yet, while the US will likely have the same two political parties for the foreseeable future, there are several dramatic trends that have changed the look of these parties and the party system: the emergence of ideologically polarised parties, the internal weakness and fractiousness of the parties, and the rise of campaign fundraising and spending by independent groups.

Polarisation of the political parties

The US political party system has become increasingly polarised. Each of the two parties has become more internally homogenous and has moved further to the left or to the right of the political spectrum. These developments are making governance more difficult.

It is not just academics who lament the increasing distance between the two parties: the American people, too, sense that something has changed and that it is becoming harder to govern. A recent survey conducted by the Bipartisan Policy Center with USA Today showed that 76 % of respondents believed that US politics had become more divided than in the past. Seventy-four per cent thought that these divisions were a bad thing, making it harder to get things done, rather than a good thing by providing voters with a clear choice. These responses were consistent across Republicans, Democrats and independents. Most respondents believed that the deepening divisions between the two parties were caused by both Republicans moving to the right and Democrats moving to the left (Bipartisan Policy Center 2013, 12: Questions 34, 35 and 36).

People are not wrong in their perception that the ideological gap between the parties has grown. For much of the twentieth century, the two political parties looked quite different from the way they do today. Each party contained within it a significant amount of ideological diversity, and the two parties’ ideological leanings overlapped in important ways.

This was most clearly seen in the Democratic Party, which for most of the mid-twentieth century was the majority party. The Democratic Party had two ideological wings. Most Democrats and the representatives they elected were progressive, or on the left side of the political spectrum. But the Democratic Party also had a strong right wing, based primarily in the southern states. The Republican Party had its own wings: most Republicans were on the right of the political spectrum, but the party also had left-leaning voters and representatives.

What this meant in practice was that it was not easy for one political party to govern by itself, even if it had a clear majority of elected representatives. To pass legislation, the majority Democratic Party in Congress would often have to find allies in the Republican Party. Conservative Democrats might defect from the party on issues of civil rights, defence or the expansion of the welfare state, but a coalition of left-leaning Democrats could ally with left-leaning Republicans to pass legislation. Conversely, the conservative faction of the Democratic Party could often find enough allies in the Republican Party to form a working majority to block these efforts or to pass legislation on other issues (Polsby 2005).

While this party system of the mid-twentieth century had the virtue of regular bipartisan coalitions, its critics were fierce in their opposition. Political scientists generally hated the system and the discipline took an official stance against it. What kind of political system could elect a Democratic president and strong Democratic majorities in the House and the Senate, only to find that the president’s policy programme was blocked by a group of members from his own party (American Political Science Association, Committee on Political Parties 1950)? Powerful party chairs of committees would regularly oppose the speaker of the House and the president of their own party (Polsby 2005).

What political scientists railed against was the unaccountability of such a system. Should not the US have a more parliamentary system, in which parties with clearly defined ideologies campaign on distinct agendas are given an electoral mandate to govern by the voters and are then held accountable by the voters at the next election?

The story of the past 30 or 40 years is that many of the wishes of these political science critics have been fulfilled. The political parties have become much more ideologically unified. Southern congressional seats which were once held by members who were overwhelmingly white, conservative and Democratic are now held mostly by conservative Republicans and a smaller group of African American Democrats. In 1949, 98 % of House seats in southern states were held by Democrats. By 2013, only 28 % were in Democratic hands (Ornstein et al. 2014, Table 12).

Today, party polarisation in Congress has reached the point where the ideological separation of the parties is nearly perfect. For the past decade the most conservative Democrat in Congress has been to the left of the most left-leaning Republican. This can be compared to the situation in the early 1950s, where over 40 % of the members of Congress overlapped with the other party on an ideological scale (Voteview.com 2015).

The current situation resembles what the political scientists of the 1950s were calling for: responsible parties, one clearly on the left; the other clearly on the right. But as Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein (2012) have noted, today’s parties resemble parliamentary parties, but without a parliamentary system of institutions. The framers of the US Constitution designed a system of institutions whose power is fragmented. The executive is separate from the legislative. The president, senators and members of the House of Representatives are elected for terms of different lengths, and presidential year and mid-term elections have vastly different levels of voter turnout. Moreover, for many legislative actions in the Senate, a super-majority of 60 % is needed. As things stand today, it is very difficult for one party to assemble a governing majority. Capturing the House, Senate and presidency might take several elections. Conversely, when power is divided, the ideological polarisation that characterises the political parties makes it very difficult to forge the many compromises needed to negotiate legislation through the House and Senate and to get the signature of the president.

Commentators have always railed against the gridlock that can arise in the US system of the separation of powers (see, e.g., Burns 1963). However, a body of research shows that for much of the twentieth century divided governments were legislatively productive (Mayhew 1991). These governments were able to legislate because (1) cross-party coalitions were regularly formed to pass legislation, and (2) there were a number of areas—for example, farm and highway bills—that relied more on a coalition of regional interests than on ideological agreement.

Today the parties are polarised on many issues, and as a result, even seemingly apolitical matters such as roads and agriculture are seen through the lens of party ideology—and a divided government with two ideologically polarised parties is more often than not unproductive.

Weak and fractured parties

Compared to parliamentary parties, US political parties are weak in selecting their own candidates and lack the strength required to keep the members of the legislative caucus together. In the US, the selection of candidates for office is mainly made through the primary election system, rather than by party leaders selecting candidates for office. Thus the selection of candidates who will appear on the party line on the ballot is made by the voters, not party leaders. Therefore, for example, even someone who is considered a pariah by the Illinois Republican Party leadership could join the race, raise funds, develop a following and win the Republican nomination. In this sense, the candidate captures the party rather than the party controlling the candidate. Right from the start, candidates need not be from among the party faithful.

Party discipline is not strong once parties are in office. Congressional leadership does have some carrots and sticks to shape the behaviour of its rank-and-file members. But ultimately, a representative who goes against party leadership, even on important issues, might still be able to return home and persuade the voters to re-elect him or her. In fact, there are times when standing up to the party leadership might make the representative more popular at home.

This lack of party discipline compounds the problems of governance. Both parties are increasingly finding it difficult to agree on policy. They are operating in a system of institutions where power is divided and are having a hard time corralling their own members and maintaining a working majority.

The Tea Party phenomenon in the US illustrates this point. Most Republicans are in broad agreement with the policy preferences of the Tea Party. In recent years, however, there has been a substantial group of Republican members of Congress who identify strongly with the Tea Party and are disinclined to strike a deal with a president from the other party or to follow their congressional leaders in crafting a Republican position. Republican Party leaders have found it difficult to negotiate compromises with President Obama and the Democrats while at the same time negotiating with factions within their own party.

Financing of campaigns and parties

US political campaigns are almost exclusively financed by private contributions. Even as recently as 15 years ago, the overwhelming majority of those contributions flowed to political parties and their candidates. But in recent years, legislative, regulatory and especially court decisions have made it more difficult to limit or regulate how independent groups raise and spend money to influence political campaigns. (The most prominent of these court decisions is Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2008)).

The past 15 years have seen a dramatic rise in the campaign spending of independent groups, entities that are neither political parties nor candidate organisations. For example, independent expenditures in the 2014 House and Senate races totalled $531 million, up from less than $200 million in 2010 and less than $10 million in 1998 (Ornstein et al. 2014, Table 3-14). What this means is that campaigns are financed by a patchwork of groups, organisations and individuals, with political parties being one voice among many. The parties are still quite strong and have increased the amount of money they raise and spend, but they now have competitors. Some of these outside groups are allies of the parties. Others represent ideological factions within the parties, and they spend money to try to elect candidates who are more in line with the group’s ideological preferences. Still others are interest groups whose message sometimes appeals across party lines. The current state of campaign law prohibits political parties from coordinating with independent groups. For example, a political party may not coordinate with an ideologically friendly independent group to run political advertisements in favour of a particular candidate.

This proliferation of campaign groups makes life tougher for the two political parties. They cannot formally coordinate activities among groups that might be within their party orbit or that might perform important functions such as voter registration, the collection of political data and so on. At the same time, the parties are competing in elections with other entities that might outspend them in particular contests.

Some critics of these developments would like to regulate these outside groups, although court decisions have undone many of the existing regulations. Other critics worry about the strength of the parties and their ability to compete with all of these groups. They advocate increasing the amount that can be donated to parties and removing certain restrictions on political parties. (For a summary of the debate, see Schmitt 2015.)

There is, however, no consensus on what should be done about the rise of independent groups. For the foreseeable future, parties will share the stage with them and thus face additional hurdles in electing candidates loyal to party beliefs.

Conclusion

The US political party system is likely to continue to see the dominance of the two major political parties. However, these parties have undergone developments that have made governing more difficult.

The existence of ideological parties in a separated powers system of government that often produces a divided government makes achieving a majority on any legislative issue exceptionally difficult. Even agreements forged by the leaders of the opposing parties can be frustrated by fractures in the parties themselves and by the lack of party discipline. Finally, the parties face significant challenges during elections, as campaign spending is divided among many disparate and sometimes rivalrous groups.