Electing one party in a two party system brings about a larger portion representation than a party in a multiparty system would, as they represent only a small fraction of the whole population of the country. Hence, there is a strong feeling of representation, and the people elected have confidence in their duties, because they know that they have an obligation to fulfill to the massive support that brought them in the office. In addition, the voters know the party they identify themselves with, even if they have not followed the election, and can vote against that. A two-party system is also more stable than multi party system, and the stability brings about the economic growth. As a two-party system continues to dominate the United States, unconventional ideas do not have any political influence that hinders rapid change in governments and policies.
Both parties in the U.S tend to seek broad support and, thus, tend to be politically moderate and are able to rule better. For example, both parties in the United States have solid bases they count on; hence, they seek from the center (Disch, 2002).
Multiparty system tends to encourage regional voting, while a two party system tends to have support throughout the country. Multiparty system reduces the effects of tribalism and regional imbalances in sharing the national cake (Disch, 2002).
Advantage of Third Parties to a Two-party System
Even though, presidential candidates of third parties have little chances of winning, they have historically promoted concepts and policies incorporated as essential parts of the social and political lives. For example, in 1880’s, both the prohibition and socialist parties promoted women suffrage, but by 1920, the 19th amendment giving women the right to vote had been ratified. Another example is the child labor laws. The famous kneading-Owen act established such laws in 1916 (Disch, 2002).
Reasons for Continuing Federal System in its Current Form in the U.S.
Federalism may be not the best system, but it is a complete system of government as it offers two layers of protection to the citizens. There is the central government working tirelessly to keep the country as a unit, it also works to keep the US states from encroaching on individuals or becoming intrusive, which also applies to the states. The system is such that the states have a lot of control to what the citizens in the respective states are subjects to, for example, police powers, education, safety, health, etc. (Zavonyik, 2011).
A federal system of government is also necessary because it provides for better and stronger central governments that offer added advantages to the states. The federal system allows for a common currency and a strong national defense. It also regulates both national commerce between states and international trade, in addition to providing a national and international power. The articles of confederation did not succeed because they did not provide a strong central government. The constitution as the governing document for the US replaced these articles (Zavonyik, 2011).
The benefits that the federal government offers are crucial in making the country stay on top position and prosper. The system offers a stronger defense against external attacks, better business environment, and better representation of citizens in the work force. The federal government, therefore, improves on the economy of the country. The benefits make it hard for U.S to abandon the current state of federalism (Madison, 2007).
Powers of Appointment to the Federal Bureaucracy
The United States president holds the power to appoint crucial members of the federal bureaucracy. The president of the U.S. appoints over six thousand new federal employees before taking office. The appointees range from the workers in the White House to top officials in the federal government. The top officials include federal judges, heads of federal agencies, and members of the civil service. The powers of appointment of people to the federal bureaucracy continue to be controversial. Some people argue that the powers are too much for the president while others defend the powers of the president.
The people supporting the powers of the president to appoint people to the federal bureaucracy argue that these powers are necessary. The necessity of the powers comes from the fact that each new president has a strategic plan of action to steer the country. In order for the president to achieve his vision for the country, he ought to have people he can work with. The president, therefore, has the right to appoint the people he wants. The president has the right to sack anyone he thinks is not in his vision for the country (Debeen, 2005).
The people against the idea have an extremely different opinion of the same issue. The people against the idea think that the powers compromise on the democracy of the country. If the government was truly democratic, the powers to appoint people to the federal bureaucracy should not lie on a few people, but on the citizens too. The people against the idea, therefore, have the opinion that the current system of appointment of people to the federal bureaucracy should have been revised to include more citizens on the decision making (Debeen, 2005).
Controversy on the issue will continue as long as these powers remain in a few hands. The system has the benefit that the president is able to execute his vision well. The problem, however, is that the system compromises on the democracy of the country and is prone to misuse.
Reasons for Representative Democracy
Representative democracy involves people voting for representatives; the representatives then vote for policies. Direct democracy involves people voting for the policies directly. In the United States, the federal government takes the representative democracy system, as opposed to direct democracy. The federal democracy offers some benefits, for example, quick decision making among others. The benefits that the system of democracy offers is the reason the federal level of government practices the system. However, in the 21st century, the federal level of government should move from the representative democracy to the direct democracy (Scheb, 2006).
The main reason why the federal level of government in the U.S. takes on the representative democracy is the swift nature of the system in voting and implementing policy initiatives. People vote in for the favorite representative in different sub levels of the federal government. The representatives together discuss on the policy initiatives and vote. The decision making process is fast, because it involves only the representatives who gather in one place. Arriving at the decision for policymaking is also cheap. The decision also reflects, roughly the favorite choice on the ground (Scheb, 2006).
Although this form of democracy offers some benefits, it is not favorable in the 21st century. Direct democracy is more favorable than representative democracy. Citizens have a right to have the policies they want. Citizens can achieve this only through direct democracy. The citizens will vote in for the policies they want directly and, therefore, will have a direct say on the policies of the government. Representative form of democracy is also prone to misuse. The representatives may abuse the privilege of discussing and voting for policy initiatives to further their interests. Federal government, therefore, should move from representative democracy to direct democracy.