Talk:Two-party system

message: The following is under the list of arguments FOR the two-party system:
"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."
Sounds more like an argument AGAINST the two-party system to me. I'm going to move it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.65.16 (talk) 13:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: argument in the wrong spot

message: Here is how it presently stands:
The two-party system has historically been common in the so-called Anglosphere nations such as United States and United Kingdom, as well as in many small or newly independent countries such as Jamaica. While Americans and Britons often see the two-party system as natural, based on their long experiences with it, it is in fact a product of the particular rules in place. The two parties that dominate thus have an incentive to keep the rules as they are, so as to prevent electoral losses to smaller parties.
Exactly which rules are in place in the United States that keep the two parties where they are?  The point made earlier in the article about plurality voting is not an issue; the two parties legitimately *do* receive portions of the vote comparable to their representation.  (In the 2004 election, for example, Bush and Kerry combined to receive 99.0% of the popular vote.)  It's not like there are a bunch of third parties getting 20% of the vote or whatever.  
:Clarified article by pointing out that while number of votes sometimes equals representation, it is not assured to be (which leads to tactical voting...)--68.169.173.148 11:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the assertion is not justifiable as it stands. There may be a 'stable equilibrium' of its own accord, or there may be something constraining politicians into one of two camps, or there may be clear political polarisation, or the voting system may influence things, or there may be some sort of inertia. The UK and US experiences in the past half-century are different. And so on. Charles Matthews 13:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: One example of systematic bias toward a two-party system in the U.S. is the Presidential debates sponsored by an organization run jointly by the Democratic and Republican parties.  The threshold for participation is that a candidate must be achieving at least 15% of the projected vote (not sure whether it's likely voters or all registered voters) in major public opinion polls.  This practice has effectively kept out third party candidates polling in the single digits who might get some currency from such a debate.  These changes I believe were brought about by the scare the two parties got from Ross Perot in the 1992 election. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 14:05, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Germany is definitely not a two-party system as defined in this article. Although there are two "dominating" parties they rarely receive an absolute majority in parliament. In 60 years, there has been no federal election with an absolute majority for a single party - the closest was in 1959, I think, with CDU and CSU together having an abs. majority (they are often considered one party in Germany as they have a joint Fraktion and joint chancellor candidates).--Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Only two parties have effectively governed Canada over the past 140 years. It is clear then that Canada has a de facto two-party system at the federal level. Even though smaller parties may be also represented in Parliament and may hold the balance of power in a hung legislature, they are not represented in government and do not hold cabinet positions. 161.24.19.82 17:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: A temporary anomaly that has been now corrected. Since the formation of the "new" Conservative party and Harper's election victory in 2006, Canada is firmly back to a two-party system. No matter what one may argue, the truth is that no one in the foreseeable future will become the PM of Canada unless he/she is the leader either of the Liberal Party or some incarnation of the Conservative Party. 200.177.7.127 (talk) 13:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Examples" paragraph needs work 

message: Is Germany a two-party system? We have two major parties (social democrats and conservatives), although coalitions with smaller parties are oftenly formed (especially on a regional basis). The two "third" parties are the Greens and the liberals, although in some regions the democratic socialists and even the right-wing extremists get a hold as well (the former having formed regional coalition governments before).
Traditionally German regional governments are coalitions between one of the two major and one of the minor parties, whereas the national government is oftenly made up of a major party alone (the fading social democrats / Greens coalition being a counter example).
Traditionally the conservatives always choose the liberals as a coalition partner and the social democrats stick to the Greens, although that holds less true on a regional basis.
Germany has a law which states that a party has to hold more than 5% of the votes to enter a regional parliament, although there is an exception which allows individual representatives to be voted directly into the parliament (although, IIRC, they then act as individuals rather than members of their parties). The whole system was created in an attempt to prevent the mistakes of the former governmental systems from occuring again.
In practice the two largest parties receive most of the media attention tho, and the thirds are usually only discussed if they enter a coalition or do something particularily outrageous (such as the two nationalist parties forming an alliance to increase each other's chance of getting seats in the parliaments). -- Ashmodai 14:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Germany is definitely not a two-party system as defined in this article. Although there are two "dominating" parties they rarely receive an absolute majority in parliament. In 60 years, there has been no federal election with an absolute majority for a single party - the closest was in 1959, I think, with CDU and CSU together having an abs. majority (they are often considered one party in Germany as they have a joint Fraktion and joint chancellor candidates).--Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Germany --  a two-party system? 

message: I removed the following:  
In Canada, only two parties (Liberals and Conservatives) have a realistic chance of winning, but the other parties often get enough seats that the party in power must consider their views — though rarely to the point where a European-style coalition government is necessary. Canada is sometimes described as a "two party plus" system. 
I am of the opinion that the descriptor "two party plus" system is not at all accurate, and is based on a rather archaic quote from sometime in the 60s.  If the author of the above can find a contemporary citation in which the media, political commentators, historian or academics currently use this term, I believe only then should the above paragraph be reconsidered for inclusion. 
The Liberal Party has had a virtual monopoly on federal government power for about a century. The most significant Progressive Conservative governments (Diefenbaker and Mulroney) were politcal anomalies.  So arguably one could say it is even more accurately a "one-party plus" system.  
However, it is only most correctly accurate from an objective standpoint to call it a multiparty system.  Federal parliament has had representation from *at least* three parties for about a century.  The CCF/NDP has maintained an often strong and influential presence in Ottawa since its inception in 1933, and they held the balance of power in a couple of Liberal minority governments.  Social Credit had representation in Parliament for over five decades.  The Progressive Conservative Party went down to massive defeat in 1993, and their position was usurped by the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois.  From 1993 until 2005 there were five parties represented in Parliament. Prime Minister Harper's Conservative Party is the result of a merger between the Canadian Alliance (successor to Reform) and the Progressive Conservatives.  The PC party did not sit as the Official Opposition at all after their defeat in 1993.  
 
To broaden the argument a bit, I'd like to note that on a provincial level, the CCF/NDP has formed the government in five provinces and one territory (Saskatchewan, Manitoba, British Columbia, Ontario, Nova Scotia and Yukon), Social Credit dominated the governments of British Columbia and Alberta for decades, and the Parti Quebecois and the Union Nationale both formed governments in Quebec.  
When you balance it all out, it is difficult to see how Canada can be considered anything but a multi-party system.
This is absolutely correct. Canada is has a multiparty system, not two-party. This should be changed soon. Mike.lifeguard 00:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only two parties have effectively governed Canada over the past 140 years. It is clear then that Canada has a de facto two-party system at the federal level. Even though smaller parties may be also represented in Parliament and may hold the balance of power in a hung legislature, they are not represented in government and do not hold cabinet positions. 161.24.19.82 17:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: A temporary anomaly that has been now corrected. Since the formation of the "new" Conservative party and Harper's election victory in 2006, Canada is firmly back to a two-party system. No matter what one may argue, the truth is that no one in the foreseeable future will become the PM of Canada unless he/she is the leader either of the Liberal Party or some incarnation of the Conservative Party. 200.177.7.127 (talk) 13:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada Not A "Two Party Plus" System 

message: In the last general elections for parliament these were the results:
|-
! colspan=2 align=left|Party
! style="width:  50px"|Votes
! style="width:  50px"|%
! style="width:  50px"|Change
! style="width:  50px"|Seats
|-
|-  
| colspan=2 align=left|Socialist Party
|align=right|2,588,312
|align=right|45.0%
|align=right|+07.2% 
|align=right|121
|-
| colspan=2 align=left|Social Democratic Party
|align=right|1,653,425
|align=right|28.8%
|align=right|-11.4% 
|align=right|75
|-  
| colspan=2 align=left|Unitarian Democratic Coalition
|align=right|433,369
|align=right|07.6%
|align=right|+00.6% 
|align=right|14
|-
| colspan=2 align=left|People's Party
|align=right|416,415
|align=right|07.3%
|align=right|-01.5% 
|align=right|12
|-
| colspan=2 align=left|Left Bloc
|align=right|364,971
|align=right|06.4%
|align=right|+03.7% 
|align=right|8
|-
| colspan=2 align=left|Communist Party of the Portuguese Workers
|align=right|48,186
|align=right|00.8%
|align=right|- 
|align=right|0
|-
| colspan=2 align=left|New Democracy
|align=right|40,358
|align=right|00.7%
|align=right|- 
|align=right|0
|-
| colspan=2 align=left|Humanist Party
|align=right|17,056
|align=right|00.3%
|align=right|- 
|align=right|0
|-
| colspan=2 align=left|National Renovator Party
|align=right|9,374
|align=right|00.2%
|align=right|- 
|align=right|0
|-
| colspan=2 align=left|Socialist United Workers' Party
|align=right|5,535
|align=right|00.1%
|align=right|- 
|align=right|0
|-
| colspan=2 align=left|Democratic Party of the Atlantic
|align=right|1,618
|align=right|00.0%
|align=right|- 
|align=right|0
|-
| colspan=2 align=left|Blank Ballots
|align=right|103,537
|align=right|01.8%
|align=right|- 
|align=right|-
|-
| colspan=2 align=left|Invalid Ballots
|align=right|65,515
|align=right|01.1%
|align=right|- 
|align=right|-
|-
| colspan=2 align=left|Total (Turnout 64,26 %)
|align=right|5,747,834
|align=right|-
|align=right|-
|align=right|230
|-
|align=left colspan=6|
*Source: Portuguese Electoral Comission)
* Registered Voters: 8,944,508
|}
several coalitions have governed the country, this includes AD(Aliança Democrática) between PSD and CDS-PP...
I've removed Portugal from the list
--85.138.18.138 19:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Portugal is not a two-party system

message: Australia does not have a two-party system. The Liberals overwhelmingly at a state and federal level will be in coalition with the Nationals, and in the past Labor have sometimes entered into coalitions. The presence of the Greens, Nationals, Family First and the Democrats also seem to refute Australia's classification as two-party.
Whether Labor or the Coalition are in power federally, the reliance on third-party support in the Senate is significant. The Democrats helped pass GST laws, Family First were needed for VSU, the Greens, Democrats and Labor have co-operated to block other legislation.
There is no way that you can call Australia 'two-party'. --MickBarnes 06:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australia is not two-party 

message: Are the terms "majority leader", "minority leader", "majority whip", "minority whip" etc used outside the US?  The article implies that they're used in a lot of two-party systems.  The UK was formerly a two-party system but I've never come across these terms used in reference to British politics, historically or otherwise.  The equivalents would be "Leader of the House" (in the Commons - not an exact equivalent), "Leader of the Opposition", "Government Chief Whip", "Opposition Chief Whip". -JdSf 13:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to post something almost exactly like this and I strongly agree with  JDSF on this. Are the majority/minority leader terms actually used to such an extent that they are necessary, informative, and generally accurate when describing two party systems? I don't think they are and I especially don't think they are relevant or necessary in the introduction. If those titles need to be addressed they should have a section outside the introduction and should involve more than the majority/minority leader terms. - glenstein 76.179.26.12 23:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Americocentrism? 

message: After a conflict on Single-party system, an informal mediator suggested that part of the problem could be unclear definitions of the concepts we use. I started a discussion about that here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Single-party_state#Clarification_of_concepts.3F
Please join in. --Regebro 01:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification of concepts? 

message: I want to remove all labels of countries as Two Party Systems. There is no such thing as "throwing away your vote". The term "Two Party System" and its application to any nation is blatently politically charged. Only a member of one of two big parties would want you to think there is only a choice between two parties, using this false dilemma as proof. The term "System" has two pertinent meanings, one in which the "Two party system" is created as a two party system deliberately, and "Two party system" as an adjective to describe the general configuration of the state of political affairs by neutral observation alone. It is this ambiguity that makes the phrase charged. Defenders of the term "Two Party System" will say that it is self-evidently a two party system by observation, and opponents will say that it implies that the government was "intended" to have only two big parties. Politicians of course, use the term almost exclusively to eliminate the "third party" vote, and for that purpose this phrase has been exceedingly successful. To include a list of "two party system" labeled nations is a true disservice to democracy and anything other than deletion of the list or the addition of a noticable disclaimer is heinously dishonest and a promotion of personal political leanings. Android8 16:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, you're right, but in a practical sense, let's call it what it is. Technically, there's no such thing as "down", only "toward the nearest center of gravity", but that doesn't stop anyone from calling it down. Likewise, while (at least in the U. S.) it may theoretically be open to anyone to run for any office, the parties with all the power have set the system up to keep themselves in power. It would take some major reforms (political and social) to allow a third party or an Independant candidate to achieve a majority or presidency. So, in a practical sense, yes this is a de facto two-party (or one two-sided party) system. And that's not a POV, it's just a fact.  Noclevername 05:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The term "Two Party System" is inherently POV. 

message: I was tempted to delete the entire "advantages and disadvantages" portion, and I certainly would have been well within my rights... for one thing there are inherent contradictions in the "criticisms" section such as being conducive to extremist politics yet being a "one party" system. Another thing is that only one of the points is sourced. It's cute to put the US in with Trinidad at the end to give it a black eye. Just another reason why no serious journalist or academic would use Wikipedia as a direct reference.--Rotten 02:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry your great nation's name begins with "U", it must be very traumatic ... Chris cheese whine 07:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My complaint wasn't about where it stood on the list. Deletion restored.--Rotten 10:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's odd, because it looks an awful lot like you weren't happy with that particular placement.  I have put the list back on, on the basis that no reason has been put forward for taking it out - its contents are backed up at the relevant articles on those nations.  Other than the lack of sources, I don't see a major problem with the article, since it appears to be generally accurate, and doesn't say anything overly controversial in its current state.  Chris cheese whine 10:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Its hard to be neutral when so many people dislike the two party system. In my own biased opinion I think two party systems undermine democracy. 74.38.99.188 21:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think many people are enthusiastic about it.  99% of the population is simply apathetic about the issue, and there are so many different organization proposing so many different 'fixes' that it gets confusing to the 1% that strongly dislike it.  That said, the article is still NPOV and completely uncited.  If you don't fix the thing an editor is going to come in and delete the entire section.  The arguments for a two party system are neutered beyond repair and the large amount of largely uncited material in the 'against' section is so large it dwarfs everything.  It's just not fair at all, and claiming that "There is no way to defend it!", I'm sorry, it just isn't going to cut it.  It's like a conservative going to the article on liberalism, making it an anti-liberal article, and claiming in defense 'There's no way to defend liberalism!'  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.251.37.109 (talk) 02:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Garbage article 

message: This article mostly seems to criticize the two party form of electoral organization. Although in practice it may be corrupt due to corporatism etc, it should be noted that this is due to factors not directly related to a two party system i.e. global political economy. One66667 (talk) 07:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Recently a guy called Professor Nutt from the UK's advisory council on the misuse of drugs got fired for saying cannabis was less harmful than alcohol. 5 other people resigned in protest. Both of the two main parties 'agreed' with the sacking but neither had any objective justification into the reasons why (...subjective justification was clear though, they didn't like what the scientist was saying). At present, both parties are attempting to brush the incident under the carpet and still aren't responding sensibly to the advise given by the ACMD.
When a monochrome government works together ... no other voices can be heard.--81.129.211.63 (talk) 03:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A disadvantage to a monochrome government 

message: Is the reference to a two-party system forming in Westminster system governments not inaccurate? Surely this is a description that refers exclusively to the ACTUAL Westminster parliament, as opposed to the system as a whole, since it reflects more the method of voting, than the parliamentary system. Ireland is essentially Westminster, but it is more rare NOT to have a "hung" parliament. - Estoy Aquí (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Westminster system" reference 

message: What I don't fully grasp is the logic of the US's two-party system. I read extensively. I've studied history and politics. I know the basics of the Constitution. I realize the basic "winner takes all" rule in presidential elections -- that is, if a majority of votes in one state, say New Jersey, goes to candidate X, then X wins ALL the electoral votes for that state. And this "winner takes all" rule encourages big parties, and two of them, and discourages third parties. But what I don't get is how the constitution's structure logically implies that there should be only two parties; like, having only two parties is not clearly spelled out in the Constitution. The Framers didn't even think that parties would have been a factor in politics and were surprised when they emerged within a few decades after the Constitution's ratification. If anybody has a good grasp on this, wondering what the answer is here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this article isn't about the US, this page may not be the best place to discuss the matter.   Will Beback  talk   03:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: What I don't understand fully yet

message: Still could use more input from academic sources such as political science & such. I've been reading comments above on this talk page; generally interesting comments. I'm thinking there are basically two senses of the term "two-party system" -- (1) two parties only and others are excluded by structural or voting rules such as in the US; (2) two parties mostly, although other parties are not excluded and can participate, but two parties are the biggies and have the lion's share of the votes and power; and I think perhaps most of us agree that these are the two senses? Wondering what people here think is the most common sense of "two-party system"? --Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Parties aren't excluded in the US. In last week's election I saw several parties on the ballot.   Will Beback  talk   03:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but rarely do third-party candidates win. Third parties aren't technically excluded, but in practice they are, it's difficult to get a third-party candidate on the ballot -- it requires many signatures or much $. The Constitution's Framers didn't know that parties would be powerful in the US, and they had no way of knowing it would work out to only two in practice; there were times when large parties split into two (pre Civil War). But generally there haven't been any strong independents, with occasional exceptions -- Ross Perot in 1992? won 20% of the vote, but lost the presidential election. Sometimes parties like the Green Party or Socialist Workers' Party are on the ballot, but the alignment of the ballots have been set up by the major parties to favor going straight down the line -- ie voting all Republican, or all Democrat. It's how the system evolved; I don't think anybody planned it this way. And I'd like to know what academics think about advantages vs disadvantages of two-party vs multi-party; I'll keep looking for sources here; just curious.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Marginalized" would be a better word than "excluded".   Will Beback  talk   01:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, agree, thanks. Marginalized => better way to put it, yes. Hey, I'm running out of biographies of people to do. If you know anybody I can write about, that's notable, with references, please let me know or leave a message on my talk page. Maybe best to avoid political subjects since it causes so much battling even though it's great battling with you! sheesh! Take care, man.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Revamped November 2010

message: "a particular style of parliamentary democracy based on the British model and found in many commonwealth countries such as Bermuda and New Zealand"
Bermuda isn't a usually classed as a country, it's an overseas territory of the UK.  I find it rather strange it's used as an example here when there are plenty of other far better examples.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.248.87 (talk) 02:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed Bermuda since it's not a separate country. Yes, thanks for catching this.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  bermuda 

message: Is the source on US being a two-party system (link)  reliable? It refers to a comment on journalist Eric Etheridge's blog (or so it seems to be) written by Asger Deleith. From the layout on the page and the message "Comments are no longer being accepted" I assume that this is a personal comment that contains a personal opinion by a person for whom no credentials are to be found. This violates Wikipedia:SOURCES#Reliable_sources, no?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thekaas (talk • contribs) 12:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. Thanks for catching. But the US is a two-party system; no doubt about that. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  NYT Comment, reliable source? 

message: A history section for the background of how the two-party political system emerged. I don't see how that is off topic, and the references are all to reputable sites and books.Noodleki (talk) 22:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It was well written but my concerns were that it focused mostly on Great Britain which is not squarely in the "two-party system" camp, since there are more than two parties represented in the British Parliament; further, it focused on early periods of particular parties in the UK and somewhat in the US, with not much focus on why this happened. The sources were hard to check -- a link to a book site, etc. My sense it there could be some original research involved. I did not believe the first sentence -- The two-party system began with the division in English politics at the time of the Civil War and Glorious Revolution in the late 17th century; the first five references in the addition were hard to check since they lacked inline citations. Two paragraphs were unreferenced. Generally the content did not address, specifically, the two party system -- rather, it was about historical developments regarding various political parties, their ideologies and such. The Kelley book had a link only to the book on Google; I could not check what specific passages were mentioned. There is a link to a blog -- Jesse Norman. Another "reference" was a link to a term paper. The reference about the book about Gladstone and Disraeli -- just a link to a book on Google. Washington's last address is somewhat of a primary source. I did not see a mention to the Miniccuci (sp) source mentioning the word "party". The Chambers book might be somewhat useful, but again it is hard to check. This is a lot of material, none of which really focuses on what this article is about -- the Two-party system, but it is well written and perhaps could be added somewhere else in Wikipedia, such as a history of political parties in the UK and US.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally think the added content could have a place in the article, if it de-emphasized UK and US and it was trimmed down in length. It could focus on history of the development of two-party politics in various countries, rather than on the concept of two-party system. Though, maybe it's better to intermingle with the examples section. Abstractematics (talk) 00:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I would consent to content with checkable references with the words "two party system" or a close variant fairly prominent in the reference, which adds to knowledge about what a two party system is. My problem with the content added before was the subject was about the history of different parties, about how they formed, who led them, what they stood for, and such -- for me, this is really a separate subject entirely. I see the two-party system subject as a structural issue in political science, a result of constitutional choices with specific voting arrangements being at the core of what happens, and that the history of political parties as a tangent here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no original research at all, and the reason why UK is featured is because that's where the first two party system developed. See here and the history, here. There's also a book written on it - Emergence Of The British Two-Party System 1760-1832, and a historiography list on page 27 of the book Sources and Debates in Modern British History: 1714 to the Present dealing with the issue. I'm open to trimming the section of details of particular parties, although I think it's important as it provides background for understanding what these parties were arguing about.Noodleki (talk) 12:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The concept of original research can take time to learn; from my own experience at Wikipedia, I did not get it for perhaps the first year or two of my contributions until an admin took time out to really explain it to me. I had added an article on a topic with many references, making point after point, and I pointed to the references to indicate that it was not my research, but those of others. Problem was, the entire synthesis was my synthesis, that is, by putting all these referenced non-OR facts together, I was indeed creating original research; once I understood this, I got why my article had to be deleted. And that is what is going on with the addition. The first sentence of the addition is this: The two-party system began with the division in English politics at the time of the Civil War and Glorious Revolution in the late 17th century -- but we have one writer here, who sees the two-party system using the more open sense of the term (ie TPS => two dominant parties, but other parties can elect members, and form coalitions, etc) rather than the American sense of the term (ie TPS => only two parties really elect representatives, others don't get seats in legislature), and then this writer argues that the British TPS began in the late 17th century. The next line: The Whigs supported Protestant constitutional monarchy against absolute rule and the Tories, originating in the Royalist (or "Cavalier") faction of the English Civil War, were conservative royalist supporters of a strong monarchy as a counterbalance to the republican tendencies of Parliament -- this may be true, but how is this relevant to the TPS? Isn't this about the history of parties in Britain, or the history of the Whig Party there? Let's go on: The Whigs were the dominant political faction for most of the first half of the 18th century; they supported the Hanoverian succession of 1715 against the Jacobite supporters of the deposed Roman Catholic Stuart dynasty and were able to purge Tory politicians from important government positions after the failed Jacobite rising of 1715. The leader of the Whigs was Robert Walpole, who maintained control of the government in the period 1721–1742; his protégé was Henry Pelham (1743–54) -- probably true, somewhat interesting, but how is this relevant to TPS? The original research is that the topic TPS includes a history of political parties in the UK. I do not see how this information is helpful to understanding TPS.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

text: Next, about the question of what is a two-party system (TPS). Maybe the lede para should be redone to mention both senses of the term -- the stricter sense (ie only 2 parties get reps into legislature) versus the looser sense (ie 2 dominant parties but others get reps into legislature), and maybe say that both terms have been used.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

text: About the sources here and here -- what are they? It looks like a professors website. I do not see an author's name, a date, any evidence of it being a reliable source.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I provided you with an entire book on the subject and a link to a list of scholarly works on precisely this issue, see also Party Ideology and Popular Politics at the Accession of George III p. 39 and Peers, Politics and Power: House of Lords, 1603-1911 p. 76. This isn't a mysterious theory that I dreamed up, it is a generally established fact that the two party system of government originated with the Whigs and Tories. There's no controversy apart from debate on how clear cut party divisions were in the 18th century. As I said before, I am willing to trim some of the detail, but it is clearly important to explain what the basic differences between the two parties were. I don't understand what you're saying about differences in definition. There are plenty of 3rd parties in the US as well as the UK - a tps is just a system dominated by two large parties.Noodleki (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The two google book references are about the history of party politics in the UK. I did not see any mention of "two party system" or analysis that the UK had a two-party system, what this meant, when it happened, etc. I looked on page 76 of the second book -- I did not see anything related to this topic.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 04:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

text: Can you send a link? I tried searching but what I found was hidden behind paywalls. I think we could add something along these lines; my concern is several pages of text which to me are really about the history of political parties in the UK. Please keep in mind about differing senses of the term "two party system". In the UK, more than 2 parties are feasible electorally, but since two are seen as dominant, it was called TPS. At least we would have to qualify it, saying the second sense of TPS (>2 parties but 2 dominant) may have originated in Britain with Whigs and Tories. For someone with the US-sense (only 2 parties feasible electorally), saying TPS began in Britain appears incorrect.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: History section

message: On the page Politics of the United Kingdom, the second paragraph says it is a multi-party system, but I am seeking views of other knowledgeable Wikipedians.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Noting one UK Wikipedian believes the UK has a two-party system here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Copying a comment from a user on the Talk:Politics of the United Kingdom page:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The Conservatives and Labour are the two most dominant party in parliament. Until the last election, these parties formed government alone for the last half century. The Lib Dims are a smaller party (but not a minor one) and are currently king-makers in a coalition government. Scotland, Wales and (particularly) Northern Ireland have their own parties, which are present in the Westminister parliament. Minor parties are also represented in the Westminister parliament (e.g. UKIP and the Greens). So, no, the UK is not two-party system. It is a multi-party system. --Tóraí (talk) 00:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I am listening to a Teaching Company lecture on history of conservatism by scholar Patrick Allitt who said, surprisingly to me, that both the US and UK had two-party systems in the sense that with the UK, if party Z won 20% of the vote, it would get less than 20% of the seats -- he was referring to the UK in the mid 20th century, which confirms a sentence in the lede, although my own view is the US is more of a two-party system in the sense that practically no seats get won by 3rd party candidates.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  About whether UK is [[Two party system]] or [[Multi-party system]] 

message: Could the two party system (or at least, the effects of it) be considered a variant of the prisoner's dilemma? I.E., if everyone voted for a third party who they actually preferred then hypothetically the trap could be broken, but third party votes will always remain a very small minority (even if, ideally, a majority would prefer one of the third parties) due to the urge to vote for the "lesser of two evils", and the desire to not waste a vote? At the very least, is the prisoner's dilemma relevant enough to add to the "See also" section? Xmoogle (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prisoner's dilemma? 

message: I would like to see inclusion of research that has been done on the similarity between the biological evolution of bilateral symmetry from a gob of protoplasm compared to how a two-party system naturally emerges from plurality/winner-take-all voting, per "Duverger's law".  In both processes, there is a literal split that forms into a left and a right.--Chris from Houston (talk) 07:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bilateral symmetry, evolution similarities 

message: Why isn't anything mentioned here? How is that small parties in the US have no chances at all? Everytime it comes down to the two biggest parties wasting a bunch of money on their election campaigns instead of using it to help people. Moreover, "the winner takes it all" doesn't make sense at all, it just distorts the results. --2.245.79.113 (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to democracy 

message: If in Australia there are not two technical parties but rather two major political groupings, well the article should indicate this (within the body of the text) and let's leave it as a reference note in the lede sentence -- the reason being that there are two major types of two-party systems (as the article explains) -- the strict type (US, Jamaica, Malta) in which there are no third party legislators (a HUGE FLAW in US politics imho) and much more sensible looser systems such as Britain and Australia, in which there tend to be two dominant major parties, but in which other parties can get candidates elected to office. I'd much rather be a citizen of Australia or New Zealand. But getting back to the point, the change in wording is not substantial enough to merit inclusion in the lede sentence; if one wishes, maybe an article about two-party coalitions in Australian politics can be floated.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian politics 

message: Despite coalitions and additional representation, politics in the ROI is a stitch up between Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil which are little different and have held power for decades.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.80.255.163 (talk) 11:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ireland 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Two-party system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120205005205/http://electionaffairs.com/parties/UPA.html to http://electionaffairs.com/parties/UPA.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The two-party system in the United States is the only such system where other parties are virtually absent from national politics which makes them a unique oddity in the democratic world. Because of this, I think it should have its own article. Charles Essie (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Support America's two party system is unique in it's corporate duopoly. As third parties don't stand a chance compared to other countries with a parliamentary system.  This alone can be a basis for an article.  Rager7 (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :One-party state 2.0. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 7#One-party state 2.0 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  dudhhrContribs 17:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "One-party state 2.0" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: — Assignment last updated by ImagineWorldPeace (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Political Sociology