How can a country be democratic with only two parties?
The article implies that the U.S. is not a democracy, but oligarchy and democracy aren't mutually exclusive. I'd say the U.S. (and most Western countries) is both and always has been. Voters certainly have influence in the U.S. but it's limited, just like everywhere else.
I'm not sure this is true. When the highest vote-getter wins, despite the lack of an absolute majority, that gives a better chance to third-party candidates in a multi-candidate election.
The reason third parties fare so poorly in the US is that the two major parties have a duopoly on campaign fundraising and free news coverage, which is a vicious circle. The media covers only candidates who are "electable", and they judge who's electable based on their ability to raise money, but you can't raise any money if nobody knows about you, and nobody will know about you if you don't get media coverage or don't have the money to spread your message.
This is why self-funded billionaire Ross Perot was the most successful third-party Presidential candidate in recent times.
It absolutely is true.
There are two parts here. Nobody disputes the first, empirical part, the dominance of the existing duopoly. The second part, however, is a questionable causal claim. It's astonishing to me that this entire article can fail to mention even once campaign fundraising or news media coverage.
Voter awareness of third parties and third party candidates is minimal, because nearly all of the paid political advertising and free news media coverage is about the duopolist parties. This fundamental plight, not the voting system, consigns third parties to the "spoiler" role. A third party candidate is not a spoiler if they have a legitimate chance to win, which in a first-past-the-post system doesn't even require 50% of the vote. They're only a spoiler if they have no legitimate chance to win. In a 3 candidate race, 34% wins over 33% and 33%. The more the vote is split between multiple candidates, the less it takes to win.
The article mentions Ross Perot, which supports my point. To me, the most interesting question is not the % of the popular vote or electoral college he received. Rather, the question is how did Perot break through and become the most successful third-party Presidential candidate in recent times? And the answer is his money, which he used to finance TV informercials and get his message out to the public. As a reward for spending money, Perot was invited to the news media debates along with the duopoly candidates.
Sadly, Perot kind of self-destructed, wilted under the scrutiny. At one point in 1992, Perot was actually leading the polls over both Bush and Clinton! That's not a spoiler. But Perot dropped out of the race and only later returned, which dampened enthusiasm for him.
The spoiler effect presumes that third party candidates can't win. I think it's crucial to ask why they can't win, how is the system prevents them from having a reasonable chance at winning.
> (i) small parties are disincentivized to form because they have great difficulty winning seats or representation
I would say that parties are disincentivized to form because they have great difficulty raising money and getting attention. This is why they're doomed to smallness and obscurity.
Do you think that if campaign advertising and new coverage was banned, there would suddenly be a third party that springs up? If so, I disagree. I believe there is both a strong incentive for candidates who would start a third party to join one of the two parties, and for voters to vote for one of the two major parties to avoid "throwing away their vote". Any argument that proposes that attention and funding are more significant factors than the psychological factors of FPTP needs to first take the psychological factors into account. On top of that, we have evidence that countries which do not use FPTP voting have more political parties on average.
> I would say that parties are disincentivized to form because they have great difficulty raising money and getting attention.
Raising money and getting attention is winning elections. You can't have one without the other. The question is why they can't. The reason is FPTP voting incentivizes a two party system. It's a bit of a circular effect. The two parties dominate because they dominate. Sure, adding a third candidate makes winning take fewer votes, but you know what else makes winning easier? Joining an established party.
In the us, political groups for coalitions before the election happens. This is in contrast to most European countries where they set up the coalitions afterwards. Groups occasionally migrate between the parties and the us is in one such realignment now.
Going away from parties to actual individual person voting on each topic/decision would be actual democracy but not like that has no drawbacks.
In the same way, the obvious solution to a one-party system is to overthrow the government, whereas with a two-party system, you're supposed to fight within the system... and mostly accomplish nothing, because those in power have overlapping interests.
And who's gonna do that when the government has a monopoly?
What do you mean exactly? This seems a little too vague.
So as bad as a two party government is one party would likely be way worse.
The "external entity" is the people in revolution against the government. This was how the US itself was founded, in revolution against the existing monarchy.