Party System in the US Analysis

fellowship System in the US psychoanalysisNATURE OF THE PARTY SYSTEMThis paper examines the reputation of the g everywherenmental society organisation in fall in States. This paper further identifies the reasons for the weaknesses of the American parties. The nature of the American troupe governance is the cardinal- ships company trunk. This is a ships company ashes whereby there atomic number 18 both dominant governmental parties that dominate the authorities of a given state. Under the devil political party trunks, one of the parties would hold a majority seat in the legislature. This party is referred to as the majority party (Wilkins Stark, 2011). On the other hand, the party that has fewer members in the legislature is ordinarily referred to as the minority party.This concept of the cardinal party systems has disparate meaning, depending on the type of the policy-making system that a state has. For instance, under the presidential system of governance, it describes a situation whereby all elected officials function to every one of the both dominant parties within the state. Third or more(prenominal) parties exist, unless they r arely win an election (Hug, 2001). Because of these types of arrangements, a devil party system normally leads to election rules such as a achiever take all concepts.In a two party system, the chances of a candidate to win an elective post, for a major position are always difficult. However, these smaller parties have the capability of influencing the dominant parties that exists within the state. In contrast to a parliamentary system such as that of the United Kingdom, the two party system is an arrangement whereby two parties dominate an election, but there are the existence of other parties that win an election in their legislatures (Herrnson Green, 2002).The American politics is dominated by the Republicans, and the Democrats. Despite the government agency of these two parties, there is a thir d party referred to as the Tea Party. It is cardinal to explain that the tea party does non dominate the American political system, and this is because its candidates have never won any American major political seat, such as the Presidency, or even a Governors position (Janiskee Masugi, 2007).The dominance of the Republicans and the Democrats in the American political system has existed for more than 100 years, where the electric chairs are either elected from the Republican party, or from the Democrat Party. Currently, the American President is Barrack Obama, and he emanates from the Democrat Party. His predecessor was George Bush, who was elected from the Republican Party (Strangio Dyrenfurth, 2009). In as much as the Tea Party is not dominant, this party has the capability of influencing government policies, and the activities of the other two leading parties. On a specific note, the Tea Party has a considerable decide on the Republican Party.For instance, in 2013, the memb ers of the Tea Party were able to fall in with the Republicans for purposes of shutting d possess the government of President Obama. This is in their bid to negate the health care policies that were being advocated by President Obama. Based on these facts therefore, we can denote that the nature of the American party system is the two party systems. The domination of the Republican Party and the Democrat Party, and the influence of a smaller party, the Tea Party, satisfies the definition of a two party system in a presidential system. A two party system has a number of advantages and disadvantages. One of the advantages of the American two party systems is the fact that they provide information that is substantially understandable to the American voters. Through these actions, the two parties are able to create order in the political system, and this is with a representation of a gigantic political ideologies or philosophy of the party.For instance, in the 2012 elections, pr esss between Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, and the Democrat nominee, President Obama, the two candidates were able to present the ideologies and philosophies of their parties. The second advantage of the American party system, is that it gives a stable balance through the accommodation of various interests and opinions. The Republicans and the Democrats have different organs and interests groups within them, and therefore, these parties normally accommodate then interests of these groups. This is for purposes of receiving a wide support from them. Finally, the two party systems enable citizens of America to participate in the political butt of the nation (Disch, 2002). This enables its citizens to take part in the process of governance, through the political system. This is unlike in China, where it is only the communist party that can take part in the governance process, and people cannot press their own opinion, rather than that of the party (Paulson, 2006).In a critique of t he American two party systems, Baumgartner Jones (2009) explains that it cultivates a character in downplaying the emergence of choice views, and it create the political competition to be less competitive. Furthermore, the American two party system manages to create a sense of voter apathy, and this is primarily because only two views are presented at the ballot box (Lye Hofmeister, 2011). This creates a perception that choices are limited, and hence it does not contribute to an extensive political debate within the country. Furthermore, the concepts of the winner takes it all, normally discourages other independent candidates from zesty in the political process. This is because if they lose elections, there is no way they would benefit. Bibby Maisel (2003) explains that because of the disadvantages of the two party system, there has been a weakening of the American political parties in the recent times.This is because power and money shifts from political organizations, to in formal interest groups, and ad hoc committees. Furthermore, the emergence of grass root movements, and the decentralization of the structures of the party plays an influential role in the weakening of the parties (Lasser, 2012). Furthermore, the large amounts of money that are collected by candidates normally do not pass through the official structures of the party. This government agency that candidates are independent of the influences of the party, and this is because they are able to control their own campaign funds, instead of depending on the party for finances (Mckay, 2013). Furthermore, the American political system is populist, and this is because candidates are more concerned with their report with voters, as opposed to their reputation with the leadership of the party.Based on these facts, senators and congressmen normally vote against the interest of their parties, on most occasions. This is because most politicians normally seek to respond to the sloshed wound up fe elings, of the public, in regard to particular or certain issues. Furthermore, American voters do not vote in blocks, and this representation that they are likely to belong to the two dominant parties in the United States (Sartori Mair, 2005). Therefore, these voters are not easily influenced by powerful and influential political figures. However, candidates who have a strong grassroots support, and who have the capability of buying advertisement time, can play a significant role in influencing voters. Furthermore, money also plays a role in the weakening of the American political system. This is because candidates who have a lot of money can gain instant reputation, and make a name for them.Furthermore, a movement that has the capability of energizing the public, would manage to admit its own for a political office. An example is the 2008 primaries between Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton, where Obama triumphed over the party establishment that were supporting Hillary Clinton ( Valelly, 2013). Another example is the tea party victories in the senatorial primaries held by the Republican. This is an indication of the weakening of the Republican Party. Furthermore, the deprivation of a strong party structure is a factor that potently contributes to the weakening of the American political parties (Welch, 2010). This is because parties have to look for donors to finance their campaigns, and this includes manor hall groups, who can have a role in influencing the candidates to develop a policy that is advantageous to them.In conclusion, the nature of the American party system is the two party system. The political system is dominated by the Republicans and the Democrats. However, the underway century has seen the weakening of the American parties. This is mainly because of the populist nature of the American political system, and a weak party structure that requires candidates to raise their own campaign money. This makes these candidates to be vulnerable to their donors, and mostly because they would be advocating for their interests. Furthermore, because of the populist nature of the American political system, candidates are not loyal to the party, but to the voters. This means that on most occasions, candidates would vote against the interests of their parties. This is because they want to gain a positive image that is attractive to their voters. The dominance of the Republicans and the Democrats parties has existed for more than 100 years, and this means that Presidents normally come from any of the two parties identified.BibliographyTop of patternBAUMGARTNER, F. R., JONES, B. D. (2009). Agendas and instability in American politics. seat of solveTop of variantBIBBY, J. F., MAISEL, L. S. (2003). Two parties-or more? the American party system.Boulder, Colo, Westview drive.Top of FormDISCH, L. J. (2002). The tyranny of the two-party system. tonic York, Columbia UniversityPress.Top of FormJANISKEE, B. P., MASUGI, K. (2007). Demo cracy in California politics and government inthe Golden State. Lanham, Md, Rowman Littlefield. git of FormTop of FormHERRNSON, P. S., GREEN, J. C. (2002). Multiparty politics in America prospects andperformance. Lanham, MD, Rowman Littlefield.Top of FormHUG, S. (2001). Altering party systems strategic behavior and the emergence of new politicalparties in Hesperian democracies. Ann Arbor, Univ. of Michigan Press.Top of FormLASSER, W. (2012). Perspectives on American politics. Boston, Wadsworth Cengage Learning.Bottom of FormTop of FormLYE, L. F., HOFMEISTER, W. (2011). Political parties, party systems, and democratizationin eastbound Asia. Singapore, World Scientific.Top of FormMCKAY, D. H. (2013). American politics and society. American government activity and Society. Oxford,Wiley-Blackwell.Bottom of FormBottom of FormBottom of FormBottom of FormTop of FormPAULSON, A. C. (2006). Electoral realignment and the outlook for American democracy.Hanover u.a., Univ. Press of New En gland.Top of FormSARTORI, G., MAIR, P. (2005). Parties and party systems a framework for analysis.Colchester, ECPR.Bottom of FormTop of FormSTRANGIO, P., DYRENFURTH, N. (2009). Confusion the making of the Australian two-party system. Carlton, Vic, Melbourne University Publishing.Top of FormVALELLY, R. M. (2013). American politics a very compendious introduction. Oxford, OxfordUniversity Press.Bottom of FormBottom of FormTop of FormWELCH, S. (2010). arrest American government. Boston, MA, Wadsworth/CengageLearning.Top of FormWILKINS, D. E., STARK, H. K. (2011). American Indian politics and the American politicalsystem. Lanham, Md, Rowman Littlefield.Bottom of FormBottom of FormBottom of FormBottom of FormBottom of Form