Democrats and Republicans. Red and blue. Donkeys and elephants. Left and right.

It can feel like the U.S. is always split in two. 

Americans want more choices when it comes to political parties. In a recent Gallup poll, 62% of Americans said a new major party is needed.

Yet, despite this demand, third parties have historically struggled to gain a real foothold. To understand why, and where we go from here, we have to look at how the system was built.

The history of political parties in the U.S.

Our founding fathers were not in favor of political parties. George Washington feared they would tear the newborn country apart. Alexander Hamilton famously called them “the most fatal disease” of the government. But as early as 1787, when the Constitution was being ratified, political factions formed. The Federalists wanted a strong central government, while the Democratic-Republicans were focused on states’ rights.

Our two-party system has been dominant ever since, with only a few major exceptions.

In 1860, the presidential race featured candidates from four major parties. Abraham Lincoln, the Republican candidate, won with less than 40% of the popular vote. Since that time, all U.S. presidents have been either Democrats or Republicans.

In 1912, Theodore Roosevelt ran for president under the Bull Moose Party, winning 27% of the popular vote. He is the only third-party candidate to come in second in a U.S. presidential election.

In 1992, Ross Perot ran for president as an independent, winning 19% of the popular vote, the largest percentage since 1912,  but no electoral college votes.

Why the U.S. electoral system favors two parties

Most U.S. elections operate on a winner-takes-all basis. The candidate with the most votes wins the seat, even if they don’t capture a majority. This includes the Electoral College process for electing the president.

In addition, by federal law all members of Congress are elected from single-member districts, meaning only one officeholder (and thus, one party) can represent each district. 

Hans Noel, associate professor of Government at Georgetown University, explains that this structure creates “strong incentives for both voters and politicians to gravitate to the top two parties. Since only one party can win, the two closest to winning are the only ones that matter.”

In a competitive race, not only does a third-party vote tend to have little impact, it can actually help the voter’s least-favorite candidate to win. This is known as the spoiler effect.

Arguments against the two-party system

Many Americans don’t align with the major parties. In a recent NBC poll, 38% said neither political party fights for people like them. They also feel frustrated by partisan gridlock. A recent New York Times/Sienna poll found that 64% of registered voters feel America’s political system is “too politically divided to solve its problems.”

Single-member districts can also lead voters to feel left out. If a candidate wins by a very slim margin and gets the only seat, those who voted for the other party (or parties) are left without representation. One possible alternative is multi-member districts where two or more representatives are elected in proportion to the number of votes they receive. This could allow more than one party to represent the district.

Third parties can also help bring about political change, since they often form when the two major parties fail to address a concern or constituency. As political history expert Bruce J. Schulman points out, “The threat…of third-party voting can cause the major party candidates to change their platforms accordingly.”

Arguments against third parties

Minor parties are often focused on a single issue or have more extreme ideologies. This narrow scope can make it hard to appeal to a wide swath of voters.

They can also be too broad. As Noel told WeVote, “just having a third party isn’t an important goal in and of itself. Presumably we care about what it stands for. There are a lot of people who want a third party, but they don’t all want the same thing.”

Even if a third party appeals to voters, they still might have doubts. In the Gallup poll, nearly 60% were concerned about wasting their vote on a third-party candidate or helping their least favorite candidate win.

Lastly, our current system discourages third parties. Daniel DiSalvo, senior fellow with the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, believes “only a completely different political system would allow for three to six parties to exist on the national stage.”

Shifts in the status quo

Some high-profile attempts at forming third parties have hit the news recently — such as the Forward Party, co-founded by 2020 presidential candidate Andrew Yang.

“Today’s outdated parties have failed by catering to the fringes,” Yang told the Washington Post. “A new party must stake out the space in between.”

Elon Musk, unhappy about a spending bill moving through Congress, announced in July 2024 that he had formed the America Party “to give you back your freedom.” 

Musk’s party seems to have fizzled since then.

But Noel told WeVote, “Yang’s Forward Party has the same problem that Elon Musk’s America Party did. It doesn’t stand for anything except being a third party.”

A more promising development might be the rising support for ending winner-takes-all elections. In 2022, more than 200 political scientists, legal scholars, and historians signed an open letter calling for a move to multi-member districts and proportional representation.

And various lawmakers have introduced legislation to allow multi-member districts for the U.S. Congress. Some states already use multi-member districts for their state legislatures.

“Even if you didn’t get a third party, multi-member districts would be an improvement,” says Noel. “Right now, there are many Democrats in solid red districts and Republicans in solid blue ones. They are effectively unrepresented in Congress. With multi-member districts, even a very red district might elect a Democrat.”