Since Americas founding in 1776 and the eventual writing of the constitution in 1787 there has always been and will always be differences and divisions concerning the country is run. This nationwide division has evolved into two major parties that are now commonly known as democrats and republicans. Both parties have seen major changes over their many years of existence including, financial growth, governmental progression, and entire belief/platform changes. Through all this the main goal of both these parties was to be the best representation for the majority of the American people. This idea of the people first has been lost and in many cases never truly been displayed by either of these parties resulting into a party first mentality. Many factors have caused this party first mentality, most notably financial influence, societal standings, lobbying, legislative rules and gerrymandering to not only out any other third parties in elections but to uphold their political power at the expense of the American people’s best interest. There is nothing wrong with the American public agreeing with a major party’s values and stances with issues that effect the American people however when these parties and candidates get influenced by money and value staying in positions of governmental power over being an actual catalyst for productive legislative change they discredit themselves as well as the party they represent. These influences of money and the desire of power are a strong sign for some type of regulation regarding election processes, fair voting districts and an attempt at reducing the amount of candidate corruption from outside influences. 

To understand these how the two major parties have been able to dominate election processes there first should be an understanding of how the parties evolved into what they are today. During the first term of George Washington in 1791 political parties emerged between Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Party and eventually the creation of the Anti-Federalist party or the Democratic-Republicans under Thomas Jefferson (Dennis). George Washington was even fearful of the creation of political parties as he felt it would only serve to undermine the publics best interests and only create division. He even discusses his stance on political parties in his September 1796 farewell presidential address stating:

“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… But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it.” (ushistory.org)

He warranted that though political parties could be founded in just and beneficial causes in the end they would only end up serving themselves in the purely representative that the United States is. While political parties are no actual governmental or legislative component in the Constitution they have proven to be the final decision that all Americans make, weather Democratic or Republican, to elect officials who create laws that influence our everyday lives.

With this increase in power these political parties have been able to change the entire voting and election playing field with multiple tactics. Political parties will use vast amounts of money to sway voter opinion in favor of the candidate they want in office or the candidate they want to stay in office. Even though the supreme court has put regulations on donations that political parties and candidates can receive, there are political action committees that declare independence from the parties and candidates they represent. These independent political action committees, also known as Super PAC’s receive an unlimited amount of money from various donors that wish to see their candidate of interest win positions in government. Since these Super PAC’s cant directly give to candidates or parties they get around this by creating advertisements and pushing their candidates into the front of voter eyes swaying voters who are not strictly democratic or republican. These advertisements can even include the candidates also allowing for the candidates to influence the scripts of these advertisements (Backer). This is counterproductive because this may increase voter participation during elections but this also creates less competition from other parties or candidates who don’t have a large influx of money to be used for advertisement. This also creates more candidate vs candidate conflict where candidates use ad hominem attacks against candidates personally rather than argue their positions on topics that effect the country. Every candidate should have a level playing field when it comes to publicity and leave it to the American people to do their own research about candidates and pick the one they feel is the best for the certain position in government.

Another issue regarding money within the two major parties and their candidates is the heavy influence of direct donations from corporations and organizations that want to have an impact in certain legislation and regulations passed by congress. An example of this was back in 1995 congress decided that they would stop production of the B-2 bomber planes which were $439 million at that time. The pentagon had also declared that they did not require any more B-2 bombers and did not want any more. However, in 1996 congress voted for funding for another B-2 bomber plane. This was undoubtedly due to the $320,775 donated to members of congress from the manufacturing company Grumman who manufactured the planes. This change of plans by our US congress members shows that there is a deep seed of corruption and persuasion by organizations that seek to sway legislation in their favor. This amount of money was double the amount given by the Grumman in 1993 and 1994 combined. When a bill was put forward to again eliminate funding for the B-2 bombers once again in 1996, the Grumman company donated $75,200 to help the campaigns of members of congress (Choo). Who’s holding congress accountable for this misuse of taxpayer money. A more recent example of congress disregarding the input of the national defense because of personal and political gain was in 2014, when the defense budget allotted $120 million for the army to have Abrams tank upgrades. Even though national defense had been attempting to cease tank production as well as upgrades years prior to this and keep production open through foreign sales. Even an analyst from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment stated it was questionable as to why the Army and Marine Corps needed to increase upon there already 9,000 tank inventory (Sisk). To understand why this was done you have to know where the politicians who passed the bill are representatives from as well as why they would see interest into continuing funding for something that seemed to be unnecessary. The Representative Mike Turner from Ohio was quoted saying “Congress recognizes the necessity of the Abrams tank to our national security and authorizes an additional $120 million for Abrams tank upgrades. This provision keeps the production lines open in Lima, Ohio, and ensures that our skilled, technical workers are protected."(Sisk). Mike Turner is not only a representative from the state where the only American made tanks are manufactured, Ohio, but he also heads the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee. These would all be reasons why he would want to keep the manufacturer in business this is not only good for his representative state but also his position in the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee in the house. Everything politicians do has a personal or financial gain behind their actions.

Dealing with contracts and legislation between the government and corporations or organizations, lobbying plays a large role in how politicians and governmental officials are swayed into changing laws. Lobbying is defined differently in all the 50 states however the principals remain the same. To have an understanding of lobbying I will use the definition given by the state of South Carolina:  

“Lobbying means promoting or opposing through direct communication with public officials or public employees: (a) the introduction or enactment of legislation before the General Assembly or the committees or members of the General Assembly; (b) covered gubernatorial actions; (c) covered agency actions; or (d) consideration of the election or appointment of an individual to a public office elected or appointed by the General Assembly.” (Wood)

 The people who are paid to carry out the action of defending or attempting to defeat legislation before any legislative body is a lobbyist (Wood). The act of lobbying in itself is not an inherently destructive force however many Americans see it as this due to the power that lobbyist have to control the government. The issue with lobbying isn’t that it exists but the fact that lobbying has become an industry in itself because of major corporations and organizations pouring billions into lobbying efforts. Since 1998 the amount of total lobby spending from corporations and organizations has gone from 1.45 billion to 3.12 billion while the amount of registered active lobbyist has been between the range of 10,000 to 14,000 (“Lobbying”). Lobbyist are paid by entities like labor unions as well as expansive corporations to fight for legislation by petitioning and influencing members of congress through meetings to introduce legislation and sway congress members votes for legislation that would benefit their employers (Murse). They create solid arguments for the issues that only support their causes and interests directly to congress members republican or democratic. This ability is something that the average American doesn’t have as there is no major company or organization that is backing them, helping shape policy outcomes. Additionally, these companies have profited greatly due to the benefits that come along with the successfulness of the lobbyists that they hire. Studies have shown that there is a relationship between certain lobbying cases and government favors (Craig). Examples from the Center for American Progress state “One study found that increasing lobbying reduces a corporation’s effective tax rate, with an increase of 1 percent in lobbying expenditures expected to reduce a corporation’s next-year tax rate between 0.5 percentage points and 1.6 percentage points.” (Craig). Decreasing your companies tax rate between 0.5 and 1.6 percentage points is extremely profitable, especially for these large corporations. Another example of the beneficial attributes of corporate lobbying tactics deals with the campaign side of politics and how there is an economic incentive for corporations to lobby and support federal campaigns.” Finally, federal contracts were more likely to be awarded to firms that have given federal campaigns higher contributions, even after controlling for previous contract awards.” (Craig). This increase in lobby spending and the special interests of the lobbyist and the companies they work for mostly serves as a hindrance to the American government, and economy, that both major political parties are guilty of succumbing too.

Extending further into the discussion of party polarization, there is a growing percent of the voting populace that believes that no party even represents them. The latest Rasmussen poll states that 53 percent of likely voters think that “neither party in Congress is the party of the American people.”(Griffiths).  There are those that suggest that it is okay for third parties to be around up until election time as it detracts from both major parties however the minor parties never win elections in the end (Webber). Another theory as to why there are always two major parties is that these parties win based on the most votes always wins, there is no proportional representation in a two-party system. Going further this theory states that the two parties are a result of the way the constitution is set up and the only way to counter it would be to change the constitution. These only serve to further cripple the American political system and doesn’t help the politically diverse society that America has become. These also don’t mention the ways that the two major parties will help in the effort to have just two parties. There are multiple ways that the two major parties will oust out third parties, the first being through major elections. Over the past fifty years, in most States, Republicans and Democrats have passed laws regulating the right to vote for anyone who doesn’t join their party. Party members are the ones that decide what candidates will represent them in the general election. This pushes away any independent voters that weren’t a member of either party even though the largest voting group of the country are independents (Independent Voter). It has become a decision between picking a party or to not vote. Financially, the two major parties use lockups to control political elections. For example, theses lockups could be restrictions on interest group or third-party campaign expenditures. The two dominate parties could ban or restrict the others ability to spend as a way to keep power between them (Rice). 

Progressing through the methods of the two-party systems party minded motives, gerrymandering is possibly the most effective and deceiving tool that goes toward the power in government that both parties wish to maintain. Gerrymandering is the redrawing and manipulation of voting district boundaries in an attempt to keep governmental power within a sole political party or to protect/harm the political interests of parties and voting minorities (Mann). During the 2016 elections for the House of Representatives, the average electoral margin of victory was 37.1 percent (Klaas). This percentage is surprisingly high for such a political battleground that is the United States political system. The reality is that the typical race ended with a Democrat or a Republican winning nearly 70 percent of the vote, while their challenger won just 30 percent (Klaas). Shouldn’t the margin of victory be closer? That would relate to a greater variety of voters for both parties. The 2016 election year only had 17 out of 435 house seats decided by a margin of 5 percent or less. Just 33 seats in total were decided by a margin of 10 percent or less. This means that more than 9 out of 10 House races were landslides victories. In 2016, there were no truly competitive Congressional races in 42 of the 50 states (Klaas). This uncompetitive politics is a result of gerrymandering. 

The American people deserve a fair voting system to true represent the true American opinion. Even former president Barack Obama discussed the ineffectiveness of gerrymandering on the American voting populace during his last State of the Union Address, stating: "We have to end the practice of drawing our congressional districts so that politicians can pick their voters, and not the other way around."(Ingraham). 

The American political system is a simple yet complex entity that, often, creates rifts and unrest between people all over America. It’s such a debated topic that when anyone brings up their party position there is bound to be difficulties on issues based on political standing

 