The American Two-party System

　　No one now living in the United States can remember when the contest began between the Democratic and the Republican parties. It has been going on for more than a century, making it one of the oldestpolitical rivalries in the world.

　　The American political system is a classical example of the two-party system. When we say that we have a two-party system in the United States we do not mean that we have only two parties. Usually about a dozen parties nominate presidential candidates. We call it a two-party system because we have two large parties and a number of small parties, and the large parties are so large that we often forget about the rest. Usually the small parties collectively poll less than 5 per cent of the vote cast in national elections.

　　The democratic and Republican parties are the largest and most competitive organizations in the American community. The organize the electorate very simply by maintaining the two-party system. Americans almost inevitably become Democrats or Republicans because there is usually no other place for them go to. Moreover, because the rivalry of these parties is very old, most Americans know where they belong in the system. As a consequence of the dominance of the major parties, most elected officials are either Republicans or Democrats. Attempts to break up this old system have been made in every presidential election in the past one hundred years, but the system has survived all assaults.

　　How does it happen that the two-party system is so strongly rooted in American politics? The explanation is probably to be found in the way elections are conducted. In the United States, unlike countries with a parliamentary system of government, we elect not only the President, but a large number of other officials, about 800,000 of them. We also elect congressmen from single-member districts. For example, we elect 435 members of the House of Representatives from 435 districts (there are a few exceptions), one member for each district.

　　Statistically, this kind of election favors the major parties. The system of elections makes it easy for the major parties to maintain their dominant position, because they are likely to win more than >their share of the offices.

　　One of the great consequences of the system is that it produces majorities automatically. Because there are only two competiors in the running, it is almost inevitable that one will receive a majority.

　　Moreover, the system tends slightly to exaggerate the victory of the winning party. This is not always true, but the strong tendency to produce majorities is built into the system.

　　In over 200 years of constitutional history, Americans have learned much about the way in which the system can be managed so as to make possible the peaceful transfer of power from one party to the other. At the level of presidential elections, the party in power has been overturned by the party out of power nineteen times, almost once a decade. In the election of 1860, the political system broke down, and the Civil War, the worst disaster in American history, resulted.

　　Our history justifies our confidence in the system but also shows that it is not foolproof.

　　The second major party is able to survive a defeat because the statistical tendency that exaggerates the victory of the winning party operates even more strongly in favor of the second party against the third, fourth, and fifth parties. As a result, the defeated major party is able to maintain a monopoly of the opposition. The advantage of the second party over the third is so great that it is the only party that is likely to be able to overturn the party in power. It is able, therefore, to attract the support of everyone seriously opposed to the party in power. The second party is important as long as it can monopolize the movement to overthrow the party in power, because it is certain to come into power sooner or later.

　　Another consequence of the two-party system is that whereas minor parties are likely to identify themselves with special interests or special programs and thus take extreme positions, the major parties are so large that they tend to be moderate. Evidence of the moderation of the major parties is that much business is conducted across party lines. What happens when the Democrats control one house of Congress and the Republicans control the other? About the same volume of legislation is passed as when one party controls both houses, although some important legislation is likely to be blocked temporarily. It is possible to carry on the work of the government even when party control is divided because party differences are not fundamental.

　　美國的兩黨制

　　現(xiàn)在生活在美國的人沒人能記起民主黨和共和黨之間的競爭是什么時候開始的。這種競爭進行了一個多世紀，是世界上最早的政治競爭之一。

　　美國的政治體制是兩黨制的典型范例。當我們說美國有兩黨制時，并不是指美國只有兩個政黨。通常約有十幾個政黨提名總統(tǒng)候選人。我們之所以稱之為兩黨制，是因為有兩個大黨派和許多小黨派。通常小黨派合在一起在全國選舉是得票低于全國所投票數(shù)的5％。

　　在美國社會里，民主黨和共和黨是最大和最有競爭力的組織。他們通過維持兩黨制，很輕松地組織選民。因為通常沒有其他選擇，美國人幾乎無可避免地成為民主黨員或共和黨員。此外，因為這些黨的競爭歷史很久，多數(shù)美國人知道自己屬于兩黨中的哪一派。作為兩大黨占優(yōu)勢的結(jié)果，多數(shù)當選官員不是共和黨員就是民主黨員。在過去的100年里，每年的總統(tǒng)選舉中都進行了一些打破舊體制的嘗試，但這種體制經(jīng)受住了所有的攻擊繼續(xù)存在。

　　兩黨制是如何能如此堅實地扎根于美國政治中的呢？答案可能就在選舉的運作方式中。美國不同于政府議會制國家，我們不僅選舉總統(tǒng)，而且還選舉許多官員，他們大約有80萬人。國會議員也是從每區(qū)一票的選舉中選出的。例如：我們從435個選區(qū)選舉435名參議員，每一個選區(qū)選舉一名參議員。從統(tǒng)計學上來講，這種選舉對大黨派有利。選舉制度使大黨輕而易舉地保持著他們的統(tǒng)治地位，因為他們贏得的席位可能比他們應得的份額多。

　　這種制度的最大結(jié)果就是它自動地產(chǎn)生了多數(shù)黨。因為只有兩個競爭者參加競選，幾乎可以肯定其中一個將贏得多數(shù)。而且，這種制度似乎有些夸大獲勝黨的勝利。雖然并不總是如此。但是產(chǎn)生多數(shù)黨的巨大傾向在這種制度中形成了。在200多年的憲法史中，美國人對兩黨制的運作方法已經(jīng)有很多了解，以使政權(quán)能夠和平地從一個政黨移交到另一個政黨。在總統(tǒng)選舉中，執(zhí)政黨已被在野黨擊敗了19次，幾乎每十年一次。在1860年的選舉中，這種政治制度中斷了，結(jié)果導致了南北戰(zhàn)爭――美國歷史上最大的災難。歷史證明我們有理由對這一制度保持信心，但歷史也表明這一制度不是萬無一失的。

　　第二大黨能在失敗下繼續(xù)生存，是因為在統(tǒng)計上夸大獲勝黨的獲勝，這能夠更有力地支持第二大黨對第三、第四、第五黨派的對抗。因此，失敗的大黨能夠保持在反對派中的壟斷。第二大黨相對于第三黨派有巨大的優(yōu)勢，它是唯一可能擊敗執(zhí)政黨的黨派，從而能夠吸引強烈反對執(zhí)政黨的每一個黨派的支持。只要第二大黨能夠壟斷擊敗執(zhí)政黨的運動，它就是重要的，因為遲早它肯定能上臺執(zhí)政。

　　兩黨制的另一個結(jié)果是：鑒于小黨派可能把自己與特殊的利益和特殊的綱領(lǐng)認同為一，因而有可能采取極端立場，而大黨很強大所以傾向于溫和。大黨溫和傾向的證據(jù)是許多事務都是超越黨派界限進行。當民主黨控制國會的一個院而共和黨控制另一個院時，會發(fā)生什么呢？像一個黨控制國會兩院一樣，雖然一些重要法規(guī)可能被擱置，大約相同卷冊的法規(guī)會得到批準。由于黨派的分歧不是根本的，即使在兩個黨控制不同部門時，政府工作仍然能夠進行。