Two-party system advocators mainly focus on how stable the government is when compared to multi-party systems. “The two-party system is said to promote governmental stability because a single party can win a majority in the parliament and govern.” This is true, however, it will not allow change. The United States should keep its values and ideas. However, there comes a time when change to policies is essential. With party polarization, compromise will not allow for change to fix problems. Many will also advocate that the two-party system is what the founders intended. This is not the truth because political parties are not mentioned whatsoever in the Constitution. Political parties emerged so that organizations could put their candidate in a spot where they have a higher probability of winning. American citizens should not have to choose between such opposite candidates when they would prefer a more moderate …show more content…
For example, if there are many extreme politicians that are trying to push forward a very specific path for the future of the United States, then nothing will ever be completed. It will never be completed because they will be unable to compromise due to their differing beliefs, which are opposite in everything except wanting the future of the United States to be great. The amount of time it takes to compromise will also be very high because their views are so different. Thus, creating more arguments and longer compromise periods. If there are many moderate politicians that are trying to push an agenda for the future of the country then there is a much higher chance of compromise that will come more quickly. Their ideas for the future of the country are more similar so that the compromise will be more fruitful. The time commitment to pushing forward a new policy is also a very big factor. It takes a very long time to pass a bill in today’s government because of the intensity of the arguments. However, if there were many moderate politicians then compromise would come quicker and more policies would be able to follow at a faster rate. Thus, fixing the problem, and many more to follow, more effectively than many extreme politicians passing a less fruitful policy in a longer amount of