 Even though they did share a vision for a democratic society, our nation's leaders have had differing political philosophies since the U.S. was founded. These differences encouraged the people who shared a viewpoint to band together into political parties. The first political parties formed behind the views of Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. Hamilton, the voice of the Federalist Party, and Jefferson, a staunch Democratic Republican, took up opposing positions on a fundamental issue, the strength of the central government. Hamilton defended the idea of a strong federal government as an extension of its citizens. Here, sir, the people govern. Here they act by their immediate representatives. Alexander Hamilton, June 27th, 1788. Jefferson and the Democratic Republicans scoffed at this view, claiming that Congress should dominate the new government and develop policies for common people, like shopkeepers and farmers. Equal rights for all, special privileges for none. Thomas Jefferson, 1780. Federalists generally controlled the northeast and middle colonies, especially in urban areas designed for commerce and manufacturing. Democratic Republicans found strength in agrarian regions. After Jefferson became president in 1801, Democratic Republicans dominated the political power until the Civil War. During Andrew Jackson's time in office, the Democratic Republican Party became known simply as the Democratic Party. At the same time, a new opposing party, the Whig Party, began gathering strength. The Democrats stood on a platform that opposed strong central government, a national bank, and elitism. It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Andrew Jackson, 1832. The Whigs were led by Daniel Webster and Henry Clay and were supported by eastern businessmen, industrialists, and southern planters on the platform of defending constitutional federal authority and a high protective tariff. The people's constitution, the people's government made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people. The people of the United States have declared that this constitution shall be supreme law. Daniel Webster, 1830. During the 1850s, the political landscape changed drastically. The Whig Party fell apart due to weak leadership. The issue of slavery split Democrats into northern Democrats and the southern Democrats. Amongst all the turmoil, a new party consisting largely of former Whigs was formed. It became known as the Republican Party, and with the election of Abraham Lincoln, its presidential candidate in 1860, it took over as the party in power, a position it retained until the Great Depression. During the early 1900s, a third major political party came on the scene, the Progressive Party. But the stock market crash of 1929 and subsequent Great Depression divided and realigned America's political parties. The Progressive Party had formed in the early 1900s. While Republicans believed in a laissez-faire approach as a solution to the Great Depression, Progressives took up a strong opposing view. This posturing led to the realignment of northern and southern Democrats back into a single Democratic Party that wanted sweeping new legislation to solve the economic crisis. The new Democrats were led by Franklin Roosevelt. This nation is asking for action and action now. Roosevelt's new deal legislation satisfied the nation and put the Democrats in power until the Vietnam War shook the country in 1968. Since that time, the Republicans and Democrats have emerged as the only political parties with substantial support. It's an election, and though they generally do not wield a great deal of power, many have played an important role in the nation's history. These third parties have often been founded on a single issue. For instance, the issue of slavery led to the founding of the Republican Party in the 1850s, and environmental issues led to the Green Party in 2000. Others, such as socialism and libertarianism, came about as the result of an extreme ideology. Economic protests led to the formation of the Greenback Party and Populist Party. Some third parties formed by splittering off from established parties, such as the Bull Moose Progressives and American Independence. The strongest third parties have been those with a truly innovative platform. But even when they were not able to gain control in Congress, they often brought new, innovative ideas to the forefront. By capturing national attention for issues such as child labor laws or bank regulations, third parties were able to force the major parties to accept issues into their own platforms. Third parties' presidential candidates are severely limited by the design of the Electoral College. In each state except Nebraska and Maine, the candidate winning the popular vote also wins all of the electoral votes. Congressional elections pose the same problem for third party candidates, win the popular vote or get nothing. Unfortunately, winning the popular vote requires a large, well-financed campaign, and third party candidates are ineligible for federal subsidies unless their party was on the ballot and polled at least 5% of all votes in the last election. Playing a spoiler then becomes a widely known role for third party candidates. A few hundred votes can turn an election when voters who would normally support a major party back the third party. This happened in the 1912 presidential election when Theodore Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party pulled votes from the incumbent President William Howard Taft's Republican ticket. This opened the door for the Democratic candidate Woodrow Wilson's victory. Ralph Nader's Green Party affected the very tight presidential race of 2000. By drawing votes away from Democrat Al Gore, Nader gave Republican candidate George W. Bush the opportunity to gain narrow victories in Florida and other states. Some Green Party supporters saw it differently. It is his own fault for failing to appeal to those voters who are demanding a more radical agenda and insisting that the problems of climate change and the dangers of economic globalization are confronted. Darren Johnson 2000. America has always been and continues to function under a two party system. But by raising awareness of certain issues, bringing innovation to major party platforms and playing the role of spoiler, many third party candidates have played important roles in the nation's political history. Some scholars feel that the American two party electoral process is better because of third party involvement. They feel many significant changes in American history began with third parties since they provide a means by which underrepresented or new groups can enter the political process. However, some scholars believe third parties disturb the political system and make way for extremist views and elevated issues that do not deserve the same attention as more salient mainstream concerns. These people believe that third parties in the American electoral process ultimately do more harm than good. Do you agree with this statement? What if you knew that third parties have proven to be disruptive to the point of undermining the electoral process, possibly at the cost of domestic tranquility? For example, in the 2000 presidential election, Green Party leader Ralph Nader campaigned as a third party contender. On election day, a clear winner could not be determined. Many of Democrat Al Gore's supporters accused Nader of drawing votes away from the Democrats, allowing Republican George W. Bush to capture key states. The weeks after the election were filled with controversy, numerous court challenges and recounts of votes. Many blamed Nader and the Green Party for allowing Bush to win the election and for causing the resulting electoral uproar. Understanding that third parties can act as spoilers, thereby interfering with close elections, do you believe that third parties ultimately do more harm than good? What if you knew that some third parties have become the electoral vehicle for extremist views? For example, the American Independent Party was the voice for segregationist George Wallace in 1968. Another example of third parties enabling racist extremists is the regrouped populist party of 1984, which was the vehicle for the presidential campaign of former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. Knowing that third parties have enabled extremist groups to participate in the electoral process, do you believe that third parties ultimately do more harm than good? What if you knew that some third parties allow fringe issues to dominate their platforms, sometimes even to the point of neglecting more salient national concerns? The Green Party concentrates its efforts on bringing awareness to environmental issues. Some feel the Green Party detracts votes from major parties, particularly the Democratic Party, and diverts attention away from more important issues such as education and finance. Understanding that third parties can bring fringe issues to the forefront of campaigns, do you believe that third parties ultimately do more harm than good? While some believe that third parties have been beneficial to the nation's political system by giving voice to deserving new groups and issues, others believe that these parties have given attention to extremist views and issues and have ultimately been disruptive to the electoral process. Despite the arguments for or against third parties, these groups continue to influence elections and affect American politics.