Despite New Zealand’s transition from a long-standing two-party system to the current multi-party system, Labour and National continue to uphold political dominance. Firstly, this essay will examine both social and electoral factors surrounding the initial endurance of a two-party system. Secondly, this essay will consider the ideological scope and legacy of the two major parties, and how these have contributed to their continued dominance, despite the collapse of the two-party system. In this essay, dominance will be defined as the ability of the parties to garner a large number of votes and accordingly have more candidates elected than smaller parties.
Initial Endurance
A nation’s social structure and electoral system are two of the most …show more content…
In contrast to countries that have a multiplicity of social cleavages, New Zealand was long considered a one-dimensional society, with socio-economic class providing the only significant cleavage in an otherwise homogenous social structure. Where the number of divisions in a society is low, a stable two-party system is the likely outcome. Those from lower socio-economic backgrounds tended to associate with the Labour Party, and wealthy voters with the National Party. Differences in ethnicity, religion, and ideology were not prevalent, thus two parties sufficiently represented the vast majority. Accordingly, emerging parties were seen to be redundant and could not compete. In this sense, the two-party system seems to have lasted as long as it did due to the enduring homogeneity of New Zealand society.
FPP
A second reason for the two-party system being reproduced for so long is the highly disproportional electoral benefits experienced by National and Labour under FPP. Political scientist Maurice Duverger suggests that FPP favours a two-party system due to the ‘elimination’ of smaller parties by voters, as voters gradually desert these weak parties due to them having no chance of winning.
Under FPP, each voter has one vote and the candidate who receives the most votes in each electorate is the winner, even if they do not get over 50% of the votes. Any votes that …show more content…
As electoral votes are catalogued under what is essentially an FPP system, the same features that used to provide National and Labour with an advantage can still be seen, yet another reason why the two major parties remain dominant as they receive a far greater share of available electoral seats, for example, a combined 68 out of 71 available seats at the 2014 election.
Ultimately, it seems that two potential reasons for the two-party system lasting as long as it did are the effects of New Zealand’s equally long-lasting, homogenous social structure, meaning that two parties were all that were required to adequately represent the vast majority of New Zealanders, alongside the FPP system, which had the effect of quashing the power of smaller parties and allowing National and Labour to prosper. Moreover, despite a restructuring of not only New Zealand society, but also the electoral system, these two major parties continue to uphold their dominance. This seems to be a result of their continued legacy, causing voters to favour them over less-established parties, and also the fact that they have managed to monopolise the ideological centre ground, attracting a majority of voters and leaving few available for smaller parties. Whether these two parties will continue their dominance
Initial Endurance
A nation’s social structure and electoral system are two of the most …show more content…
In contrast to countries that have a multiplicity of social cleavages, New Zealand was long considered a one-dimensional society, with socio-economic class providing the only significant cleavage in an otherwise homogenous social structure. Where the number of divisions in a society is low, a stable two-party system is the likely outcome. Those from lower socio-economic backgrounds tended to associate with the Labour Party, and wealthy voters with the National Party. Differences in ethnicity, religion, and ideology were not prevalent, thus two parties sufficiently represented the vast majority. Accordingly, emerging parties were seen to be redundant and could not compete. In this sense, the two-party system seems to have lasted as long as it did due to the enduring homogeneity of New Zealand society.
FPP
A second reason for the two-party system being reproduced for so long is the highly disproportional electoral benefits experienced by National and Labour under FPP. Political scientist Maurice Duverger suggests that FPP favours a two-party system due to the ‘elimination’ of smaller parties by voters, as voters gradually desert these weak parties due to them having no chance of winning.
Under FPP, each voter has one vote and the candidate who receives the most votes in each electorate is the winner, even if they do not get over 50% of the votes. Any votes that …show more content…
As electoral votes are catalogued under what is essentially an FPP system, the same features that used to provide National and Labour with an advantage can still be seen, yet another reason why the two major parties remain dominant as they receive a far greater share of available electoral seats, for example, a combined 68 out of 71 available seats at the 2014 election.
Ultimately, it seems that two potential reasons for the two-party system lasting as long as it did are the effects of New Zealand’s equally long-lasting, homogenous social structure, meaning that two parties were all that were required to adequately represent the vast majority of New Zealanders, alongside the FPP system, which had the effect of quashing the power of smaller parties and allowing National and Labour to prosper. Moreover, despite a restructuring of not only New Zealand society, but also the electoral system, these two major parties continue to uphold their dominance. This seems to be a result of their continued legacy, causing voters to favour them over less-established parties, and also the fact that they have managed to monopolise the ideological centre ground, attracting a majority of voters and leaving few available for smaller parties. Whether these two parties will continue their dominance