John Adams, one of the founding fathers, wrote that “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution” (“Quote by John Adams”). The Two-Party system has been around since the start of America. The Two-Party system is a system that has two parties that the government, or America in this case, has that lead the government or America. At the current time, the two parties are the Republican and Democrat parties. It was created with the idea that everyone can be represented within either of the parties. Even though it does create some representation of the people, the two-party system does not create an equal policy in society because it does not allow people to get far if they are not within either of the two parties, does not allow the idea of having more than two parties, and because it doesn’t represent everyone. First, the two-party system does not create an equal policy in society because it does not allow people to get far if they are not within either of the two parties. The idea of the winner-take-all electoral system is the hostile terrain for third parties because the odds are in favor of the bigger parties (Conray). The bigger parties over the years seem to have the upper hand within the government, and especially within the elections. The bigger parties, in this case, are the Republican and Democrat parties, which have been around within the American government for decades, if not more than two centuries. According to Gil Troy in his article “Third Parties”, he says that “No third party has won a presidential election in over a century.” This means that the actual chances of the third party having a chance are slim, which makes things harder for them. Also, the fact is that with this quote it can be seen that the two-party system limits equality for other parties and that they don’t have an equal chance of winning a large election. In an era of cynicism and political disengagement, public opinion polls show that Americans claim they would like to see a third party as an alternative (Troy). This means that the parties have a chance at being elected, but the main two parties still are too favored over the possible third parties. It shows that people will not completely say no to the chance of third parties running, or at least get that chance. The two-party system allows for little equality between them and the other parties who are not as dominant as them but still might have a chance.Additionally, does not allow the idea of having more than two parties. According to Wikipedia’s article on the third parties’ performances in elections, out of the fifty states, only fifteen states had victories come to the third parties. That is only thirty percent of that states, and most came from Minnesota. In the end, this shows that the third parties have a small chance of winning compared to the other major parties. In the book “Does the U.S. two-party system still work?”, the author states that “The truth is that our two-party system offers no real choice.” This concludes that the government does not allow for the third party and that possibly the citizens do not allow for it either. This makes it important to show that the people or the government are discriminating the third parties. The winner–takes–all principle applies in presidential elections, thus if a presidential candidate gets the most votes in any particular state, all of the electoral votes from that state are awarded to the candidate (Boundless). This principle proves to be part of the reason that the third parties do not get very far within the government. Again, this is more proof that the main two-parties are largely the only ones who ever win. The idea that more than two parties seem to only be just an idea, an idea that never really becomes reality.Finally, the most important reason the two-party system does not create an equal policy in society is that it does not represent all of the people. The governments that allow for more than two parties usually have more diverse viewpoints overall. (Boundless). This means that the two-party system doesn’t allow for diverse viewpoints and that there isn’t much variety within the two parties. Possible third parties may have viewpoints that are rather different from the main two parties, or Republican and Democrat. In an essay titled “The Two-Party System: A Catastrophic Failure,” Justin Soutar argues that “the Republican and Democratic Parties have divided the American people over fundamental moral values, they have failed to rectify longstanding national problems, and their existence chiefly benefits special interest groups, politicians, and mega-corporate executives” (“Two-Party System”). The two parties do not allow people to be represented completely, and that doesn’t make the two parties be overall efficient. Not every person can be represented by the two main parties, things are not black and white. However, two-party systems have been criticized for ignoring alternative views and putting a damper on debate within a nation (Boundless). This shows that the two-party system does not completely acknowledge all of the views or ideas that might be suggested. That means that the parties overlook some things, and that might view that can come from another party or the people. The two-party can be efficient but can neglect all of the people, or other parties. Indeed, while it does create some representation of the people, the two-party system does not create an equal policy in society. The system does not let many get far in the system. The two-party system allows for choice but does not allow for the idea of third parties. The system overall does not represent all of the people and can shorten their views and choices. So is two really the best?