A prize idea?

This term our A2 groups have started work on the Edexcel US Politics synoptic paper. By way of introduction I asked them to submit a piece on a question of their choice from previous Unit 6C questions for our Upper Sixth Essay Prize. Here are the rules and the winning entry by Natalie Marshall—vouchers for use on Amazon have already been sent to the lucky winner!

The rules for entry are quite straightforward.

Word limit: 2,000 words (10% penalty for every 100+)

Selection of Title
Your essay title must be comparative, inviting analysis of both the UK and US political systems. You can either select one of the previous questions from the Unit 6 papers or draft your own title and clear it with me.

Structure and Content
Thought must be given to the structure of your essay.

Introduction
Provide an outline or the background to the topic, possibly stating why the topic is ripe for discussion at this time. Starting with a recent event or quote is often a good way to get things going.

Debates, arguments, and illustrative material
This is the main subject matter. You could outline six or seven questions worthy of analysis and seek to answer these with reference to evidence covered in your reading/research. Don’t forget that this is a discursive essay and you need to present both sides of the argument.

Conclusion
Avoiding a simple repetition of the material covered above, provide an answer to the question – reference to the key arguments is advised in the process of coming to a firm conclusion.

Credit worth a total of 20 marks will also be awarded for the quality of your research, i.e. independently sourced material beyond what we have covered in class or contained in your course texts. It is advisable to include footnotes in your essay. These should not be lengthy explanations of a particular point but should be used to attribute data, quotes, etc. As a guide, I would say that a very good essay would include ten footnotes per thousand words.

This is Natalie’s essay. We thought it was a good answer to a difficult question and in terms of content, covered a good range and contained a high level of analysis and evaluation with a good focus throughout.

‘The use of Single-member Plurality (‘first-past-the-post) electoral system means that the USA and UK will always have a two party system.’ Discuss.

‘Because of our peculiar electoral law, the American government is divided between two parties. The American people are not’ ; this is according to Michael Lind who claims that the FPTP system has contributed greatly to the two party system present in the United States. The intense media focus over recent weeks on the two main parties as they fight it out for the Democrat and Republican party nominations, with little coverage of any other parties, has highlighted the fact a two party system is dominant. Furthermore, the fact that there has been no third party president since Lincoln in 1860, suggests a continuation of two-party dominance. Similarly, a two party system is said to apply equally in the UK, where the government has been either Conservative or Labour since the end of the Second World War. The use of FPTP has been put forward as a key reason for these systems arising in both the USA and the UK, however on closer inspection one can argue that there is a far more complicated explanation.

A two party system has dominated American politics since the defeat of the British in the War of Independence and the creation of the original confederation. Since then, two parties have always emerged, starting primarily with the federalists and anti-federalists, then merging into the Democrats and Republicans. Undoubtedly, the FPTP election system has contributed to this formation, by acting as a barrier for third parties. Particularly prominent in the presidential elections; the ‘winner takes all’ system means that candidates must win a majority of votes cast in each state to win all Electoral College votes. For minority parties this is an unlikely achievement, thus they tend to lack credibility and consequently lose votes. Duverger claims ‘voters tend to abandon the third party in order to concentrate their votes on the two strongest parties’ Even if they manage to obtain a large fraction of the vote nationwide, if their votes are not concentrated in states they are unable to gain much success. E.g. In 1992, Ros Perot gained 19% of the vote, yet won no Electoral College votes as his votes were spread across the US. Evidently, this system has created major difficulties for third parties in America to break through, leading to two party dominance, and there is no evidence of change coming about.

Similarly, in the UK the ‘bipartisan nature of Parliament has been in large measure, a distortion produced by the electoral system.’ Although, sometimes referred to as a two and a half party system, as a result of the increasing Liberal Democrat representation, there is no denying that Labour and Conservatives have dominated and continue to dominate Parliament and Government at Westminster, largely due to the electoral system. Akin to the US, the UK electoral system favours the top two parties and tends to under represent third parties. The FPTP system does not convert the share of the vote into seats for parties on an equal basis. For instance in 2005 the Liberal Democrats won a mere 62 seats despite gaining 22% of the vote. With a proportional representational system, this would have amounted to around 142 seats. In contrast, Labour were awarded a majority of 66 seats with only 35.2% of the national vote. On a similar point, unfairness in representation is illustrated by the fact that in the 2005 election, labour required an average of approximately 27,000 votes per MP, against 44,500 per Conservative MP and 96,500 per Lib Dem MP. Clearly this system favours the top two parties. Despite many calls for reform, whilst Labour or the conservatives remain in government, change is highly unlikely, after all, they benefit from this system; ‘Turkeys do not vote for Christmas.’

Maurice Duverger claims ‘the relationship between electoral and party systems is not a one way phenomenon’ The use of FPTP electoral systems has undoubtedly contributed to the formation of two party systems in the UK and the USA, however there are socio-cultural factors that also come into play, preventing a more dynamic and fluid party system from developing. This is particularly apparent in the USA. Despite being one of the most diverse and democratic countries in the world, paradoxically a two party system dominates with the Republicans and the Democrats. This is partly due to the principles the US was founded on. The idea of the American Dream is an essential part of US culture and has prevented certain parties from getting through. The constitution was founded on three main principles; liberty, rugged individualism and a strong suspicion of government; reasons why the electorate has never taken to socialism or communism. For instance, throughout the 1920s, anti-socialist hysteria raged throughout the United States, known as the Red Scare. Therefore, more extreme parties have struggled to emerge over the years as US society has never accepted them, thus preventing multi-partyism.

Similar features are evident in the UK, but nowhere near to the same extent. Hence we tilted towards socialism in the post war years and have allowed smaller parties to prosper. For instance, the Liberal Democrats, a party seen to be to the left of labour, opposed tuition fees, were against the war in Iraq and resisted ID cards. Similarly, the same could be said about the SNP in Scotland; ultimately seen as old labour. Therefore it can be argued that support for parties, other than the top two, is far higher in the UK than the US, E.G. The Lib Dems regularly obtain around 1/5 of the vote in the UK, leading to the belief that socio-cultural factors are more significant in the US.

Money is another factor that cannot be ignored, particularly in US politics whereby candidates must raise millions of dollars to achieve success. To qualify for matching funds in presidential elections, major party candidates need to raise $5000 in contributions of $250 or less in at least 20 states. Contrastingly, third parties candidates must win at least 5% of the vote in the previous election. Problems arise, in that; very few third parties can achieve this. E.g. In the last 50 years only 3 candidates have managed this- Wallace, Anderson and Perot. The fact very few third parties contest more than one election, also makes this requirement difficult to fulfil. Furthermore, many third parties must spend their hard earned money on ballot access petitions rather than on campaigning, E.g. In 2004 Nader had to devote his time and money securing ballot access before he was able to spend money trying to secure votes. Evidently, money stands in the way of third parties, allowing a two party system to dominate in the US. The UK, however, does not have the same restrictions and the necessity for huge sums of money, the role of money, therefore, in promoting a two party system in the UK is nowhere near as great.

The increasingly consensual nature of politics in the UK and the USA has left little scope for third parties. In the USA, the Republican and Democrat parties, despite having very polarised views, attempt to cover all policies in an attempt to gather widespread support, thus leaving third parties with limited policy areas to cover. If third parties go against all odds by doing well in pre-election opinion polls or even win a significant number of votes on election day, the major parties tend to steal their key policies. For instance, when Wallace began generating a lot of support from the South, the Republican President, Richard Nixon launched his ‘southern strategy’ in an attempt to woo Wallace voters in the run up to the 1972 election. Similarly, this occurs in the UK. For instance, In 2006, David Cameron began his ‘vote blue, go green’ campaign, capitalising on the growing popularity of green policies amongst the electorate. Thus, minor parties appear to be less important as major parties in the US and UK ‘steal’ their policies.

In conclusion, the use of the Single-member Plurality electoral system is partly responsible for the two party system in the United States, however socio-cultural factors, the impact of money and the consensual nature of politics are hugely significant, acting as barriers for third parties. Taking all these factors into consideration, the USA will always have a two party system unless all these issues are tackled. In contrast, the impact of the electoral system is far more significant in creating a two party system in the UK. Devolution in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London has shown how different electoral systems can alter the representation of minor parties in power E.g. In Scotland 2003 the Greens obtained 7 seats, the Scottish socialists 6 seats and the Independents 4 seats, creating a rainbow parliament. According to Professor Lynch at Leicester University ‘The classis two-party system of early post-war Britain has given way to a more complex picture in which distinctive party systems operate at regional, local and European level’ . Thus, although cultural issues and the nature of politics do play a part in creating a two party system, UK support for minor parties is higher than in the US and the impact of devolution has shown this. This said, as long as FPTP remains the system used in Westminster, a two party system will dominate UK politics in the foreseeable future, after all Westminster Parliament is sovereign.

SOURCES:

http://tutor2u.net/politics/content/topics/elections/minor_parties.htm
http://www.polity.co.uk/kingdom/pdfs/010.pdf
http://janda.org/c24/readings/duverger/duverger.htm
www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id:54
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/congress/lindf.htm
‘US Government and Politics’ William Storey
Edexcel AS Politics Exambuster Revision Guide
FPTP online magazine