OPINION: Dangers of a two-party system

While I’m not fully immersed, I am some what interested in international politics. When I hear about larger or important elections taking place in certain countries, I like to keep track of the results.

Like many, I was sad to see Jacinda Ardern leave New Zealand’s prime minister office in 2023. It was exciting to see Mexico elect their first-ever female president in June. And of course, I checked the British news channels every few minutes following the closing of their polls on July 4.

This last election is the one I want to highlight. You see, unlike in the United States where only two parties have any say, the U.K. has a handful that receive seats in Parliament. Attached is a map that shows the results for the July 4 election. Each color is a win for a different party.

A quick overview of the British government: Parliament is made up of the House of Lords and the House of Commons. The House of Lords is currently made up of 790 people serving life-long appointments.

There are a variety of types of people who serve in the House of Lords, including 92 of the peerage (earls, viscounts, etc) and 26 archbishops and bishops from the Church of England. Appointments into the House of Lords can be quite controversial, so I won’t go too far into that.

The House of Commons is what most Americans generally think of when talking about Parliament. They are the politicians elected in from 650 different geographical locations with 533 in England, 40 in Wales, 59 in Scotland and 18 in Northern Ireland. A total of 324 seats are needed to hold a majority in Parliament. It is the MPs (Members of Parliament) that vote amongst them for Prime Minister.

Since 2005, the Conservative Party has held the majority in Parliament. However, that changed with the July 4 elections. The Labour Party was projected to take control of Parliament, but I don’t think anyone realized by just how much.

Of the 650 MPs voted in, 411 of them were from the Labour Party. Meanwhile, the Conservative Party now only has 121 MPs in Parliament. Behind them, 72 MPs are from the Liberal Democrats. There are 11 other parties that have under 10 MPs in Parliament.

The makeup of Parliament before the July 4 vote saw the Conservative Party with 344 MPs, the Labour Party with 205 MPs, the Scottish National Party with 43 MPs and the Liberal Democrats with 15 MPs.

While the shift in party power and the inevitable changes in British policies is a huge thing, there’s another angle I’d like to look at this with as an American. Do you notice how many political parties are in play in the U.K.?

While there’s certainly political divide in the U.K., it’s not as extreme as in the U.S. It’s much easier to be divided when it seems there are only two options. With the two-party system that exists in the U.S., it quickly becomes an “us vs. them” mentality.

You are either right or left, red or blue. You are not allowed to have mixed feelings on certain topics. Everything is politicized in an extreme way. If one party has an opinion, God-forbid the other party agrees. And thus, here we are, a nation behaving like a soap opera.

The U.S. does have other political parties, parties that sometimes win a handful of seats in Congress or the House. However, in recent years, no one has come close to making a dent in the rivalry between Democrats and Republicans.

The animosity between parties is something the founding fathers warned against. Many had previously experienced the issues between rival political parties, which led to civil wars in the U.K. in the 17th century. In fact, it was for this reason George Washington’s family came to the Americas in the first place.

In Washington’s farewell address upon leaving the office of the president after his second term, he specifically warns about people valuing political parties over the nation:

“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. … It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection.”

It’s frustrating to me that we haven’t taken this warning to heart. It feels more like a prophecy than advice to a budding nation. The U.K. learned from their mistakes when it came to party powers. Hopefully we do, too.