Politics Without Winners: Why the Two-Party System is Breaking Down
By Sean Evans, Chair and Professor of Political Science
Jul 18, 2025 -
The American political party system is dysfunctional. Gallup reports that 58% of Americans, including nearly half of Democrats and Republicans, feel that the two parties poorly represent the American people and seek a third-party option. In Unstable Majorities, Morris Fiorina argues that Americans are frustrated because we have shifted from two centrist, coalition-based parties to two highly polarized parties.
Historically, the United States has had two “big tent” parties that crossed ideological and geographical boundaries in hopes of creating a lasting national majority. Party leaders made internal compromises to adopt policies and nominate candidates acceptable to their broad and diverse memberships. These compromises fostered pragmatic, centrist policies that appealed to most Americans.
Today, however, we have two minority parties that lack interest in building a national coalition. This change primarily stems from sorting, as formerly conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans have migrated to the party that best reflects their ideological beliefs. This shift means that the average Democrat and Republican now agree on more issues within their own parties and differ more from their partisan opponents.
More ideologically consistent parties facilitate easier internal compromise but also lead to more extreme policies, such as the Democrats’ cultural radicalism on immigration, crime, and race, and the Republicans’ plutocratic tax policies. This trend also produces more extreme candidates, like Democrats nominating democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani for New York City Mayor and Republicans electing Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, a conspiracy theorist and self-proclaimed White Nationalist.
The rise of ideological activists within each party has shifted the party’s focus from winning elections to advancing ideological causes. These activists prefer being right over winning and often convince themselves that losing now can lead to a future ideological victory. Since candidates need volunteers and donors, they often move toward the extremes to garner activist support. Even “moderates” are compelled to support extreme positions or face primary challenges, as Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) discovered when opposing the Big, Beautiful Bill.
These changes have resulted in close elections, ideological overreach, and more hardball politics. We are in the most electorally competitive era in American history, with each party capable of winning control of Congress and the White House in every election, and both parties closely balanced inside Congress.
Unfortunately, close elections tend to push parties toward ideological overreach instead of moderation. When a party controls Congress and the presidency, it often imposes its ideological agenda on the country, expecting to lose Congress in the midterms. This overreach leads to buyer’s remorse among Independents, who then swing to the other party in midterms or presidential elections.
Furthermore, overreach can scare the opposing party into escalating political hardball. For example, the Democrats’ cultural radicalism and politically inspired prosecutions against Trump are fueling his attacks on liberal colleges, law firms, the federal bureaucracy, and the media that supported these actions. The mutual use of aggressive, uncompromising, and sometimes ruthless politics violates democratic norms and threatens constitutional government.
Regrettably, neither party has a genuine strategy to become an enduring majority. Democrats believe that demography is destiny. They contend that the growing share of minorities, unmarried women, young people, and college-educated voters will create a multi-racial, multicultural Democratic majority—hence their focus on identity politics.
This theory faces several difficulties. First, Democrats still need to secure a significant portion of white voters, especially as they are losing working-class whites, the largest white subgroup. Second, Richard Alba’s The Great Demographic Illusion demonstrates that America is not becoming a white-versus-minority nation but rather a multiracial nation where many minorities have mixed racial heritage due to intermarriage. These Americans sometimes see themselves as White and sometimes as ethnic, making appeals based solely on ethnicity likely to fail.
Second, Republicans believe culture and educational attainment have overtaken economics as the key political dividing lines. Trump’s economic nationalism and cultural conservatism can appeal to working-class voters across racial lines and foster a multi-racial working-class majority.
However, this theory also faces problems. First, the GOP’s growth among minorities mostly involves conservatives aligning with the party that reflects their views. Second, Trump’s focus on white identity politics will likely limit gains among other minorities, who may view the party’s attacks on their identities with suspicion. Third, party elites tend to be more economically conservative and oppose Trump’s nationalist and populist economic policies.
Our party system is designed to build broad, national coalitions that reflect a majority. However, our current parties exist to serve an ideological minority. This means we have a politics without winners, as parties alternate in power because they fail to represent most Americans. The party that realizes ideological consistency fails and seeks to broaden itself first will be the next big winner in American politics.
This column originally appeared online in The Jackson Sun on July 18, 2025