The party system concept was originated by European scholars studying the United States, especially James Bryce, Giovanni Sartori and Moisey Ostrogorsky, and has been expanded to cover other democracies.
Including all parties usually makes little sense: for example, in the 2005 United Kingdom general election 16 entities run candidates and 12 got seats in the parliament, however, no researcher would argue that UK at the time had a 16- or 12-party system.
The practical choice would be between a two-party (Labour won 35% of the vote, Conservatives 32%), or three-party system (Liberal Democrats got 22%).
This results in deep political divisions, "centrifugal forces", and "irresponsible oppositions" that do "outbidding" secure in their knowledge that they will not have to govern and thus can safely over-promise.
The 2009 Bundestag election in Germany was characterized by widespread public apathy and record low voter turnout.
The three minor parties each achieved historical bests at the polls with steep losses for the two traditional Volksparteien.
[15] The 2013 election saw the first time that the liberal Free Democratic Party (FDP) that had been represented in parliament since 1949 and formed part of government as a coalition partner to either SPD or CDU (Christian Democratic Union, the major conservative / center-right party) for almost all of the period from 1949 to 1998 and again from 2009 to 2013 fell below the 5% threshold for parliamentary representation.
Whether this shift proves temporary or permanent remains yet to be seen Four party systems have been identified in post-communist countries of Central-Eastern Europe:[16] Finland was a Grand Duchy controlled by Russia until 1918.
[18] Following the 2008 recession and the ensuing sovereign debt crisis in the country, the populist left Syriza came to challenge the dominance of PASOK and New Democracy, increasing its vote share in every election from 2009 until eventually winning power in 2015.
According to recent scholars, there have been four party systems in Canada at the federal level since Confederation, each with its own distinctive pattern of social support, patronage relationships, leadership styles, and electoral strategies.
Clarkson concludes that the inherent bias built into the first-past-the-post system has chiefly benefited the Liberals.
The four categories include: There has been a growing separation between federal and provincial political party systems, resulting in a separation of political perspectives typically associated with specific parties therefore fewer provincial and federal systems are symmetrical.
Provincial systems for example, are simpler, stable, and often reflect the cleavages of each province (such as language, religion, class and ethnicity).
Due to their smaller populations, many argue that the absence of political parties makes it easier for voters to decide the person they are voting for.
[28] The concept of the party system was introduced by English scholar James Bryce in American Commonwealth (1888).
Stages of Political Development, edited by William Nisbet Chambers and Walter Dean Burnham.
After the 1800 presidential election, the Democratic-Republicans gained major dominance for the next sixty years, and the Federalists slowly died off.
Fourth Party System: This era was defined by Progressivism and immigration, as well as the political aftermath of the American Civil War.
This coalition supporting new social welfare programs brought together many under-privileged, working class, and minority groups including unions, Catholics, and Jews.
It also attracted African-Americans, who had previously largely supported the Republican Party due to Lincoln's freeing of the slaves.
[32] Sixth Party System: The transition to this system appears to have begun with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with the Democrats subsequently losing their long dominance of the South in the late 1960s, with the GOP adopting the southern strategy leading to Republican dominance as evidenced by election results.