Should the U.S. have a two-party system?

On Election Day, more than 120 million U.S. citizens voted for Republican nominee Donald Trump or Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton to be the next president.

Although some voters supported their candidate full-force, others voted for who they felt would be the "lesser of two evils," said Craig Goodman, University of Houston-Victoria political science associate professor.

The two-party system in the United States government has been in place almost since its very beginning, Goodman said. Every individual elected to the U.S. presidency since George Washington has run with the support of one of the two major political parties of the time.

The two-party system historically works for the U.S. government, provides stability and makes the election process easier for voters and candidates. On the other hand, the system limits ideas and choices for voters and candidates and promotes division.

Pro: System provides stability, encourages voter turnout

The two-party system provides stability because the election provides a stable majority of one party in the government.

Many parliamentary governments in Europe, including Belgium, Denmark, Finland and Germany, run on a proportional representation voting system.

In this system, the percentage of votes a party receives determines the percentage of representation in government, said Craig Goodman, University of Houston-Victoria political science associate professor.

If no one party gets the majority, the preliminary government has to form a coalition where several political parties cooperate, Goodman said. While forming the coalition, the government has to figure out who is going to serve and under what circumstances, which can delay having an operating government.

"You might have long periods of time where the government struggles to get organized," Goodman said. "Parties can demand, 'We're only going to be in the government if this certain condition will be satisfied.'"

The two-party system also encourages voter participation, Goodman said. It makes the process easy, and most people are aware of what either party stands for.

"If you go into the polling place, even if you don't know anything about the candidate, but you simply know whether or not you're Democrat or Republican, it simplifies your choice," he said.

State and most local government positions are partisan and affiliated with one of the two major parties, Goodman said.

Voter turnout in local races is low, and if these positions had no party affiliation, the turnout would be even lower, Goodman said.

Many municipal elections in Texas are non-patrician, which results in a low voter turnout, he said.

The two-party system is similar to a free market in the fact that people don't like to have too many options, said Robin Hayter, Victoria County Libertarian chairwoman.

"People would naturally like to have one or two options (rather) than to have a bunch of options so they have to wade through everything," she said. "That's what you have with a duopoly. It is easier, more convenient for everyone, if you have these two options."

Voters, candidates and campaign supporters put a lot of money into elections, and the two-party system guarantees a Republican or Democratic nominee has a chance at winning their election, Hayter said.

"We don't want to drop one or two million dollars into a campaign that fails year after year because it's something that we believe in," she said. "We want results; we want to get our money's worth."

Con: System limits options, cooperation

With the two-party system, voters often have to choose between imperfect alternatives.

Voters may like stances on the Republican and Democratic platform, but they can't choose both, said Craig Goodman, University of Houston-Victoria political science associate professor. If the U.S. had a multiparty system, voters might be able to find a fit that is closer to their own set of principals.

The government has to figure out a way to bridge the gap between both parties to come to agreements on policies, Goodman said. By having both parties polarized, it limits the possibilities of bargaining and compromising to keep the system functioning, he said.

There is not much of a middle ground left in U.S. politics, and without the moderates who serve as the glue between the two parties, it is difficult to find politicians who will cross party lines, Goodman said.

"Having a two-party system can make governing harder when the two parties fundamentally disagree, especially when they are polarized like they are today," Goodman said.

Ron Paul, former U.S. congressman, has always run for office as a Republican except in 1988 when he ran for president as a Libertarian.

He identifies as a Republican, but he has Libertarian beliefs. Paul said there are no advantages to a two-party system.

"It's horrible," he said. "I don't think it's very democratic. Why should you exclude someone because they are small in number, and they don't get to express themselves?"

If the government had a proportional representation voting system, third or alternative parties would have a chance, Paul said.

"If they're inclined to like one of the third parties and they know that if they can get 10 percent, they'll have a 10 percent representation in the Congress, their vote would become so much more valuable," he said. "People would vote their conscience instead of Republican or Democratic."

Paul calls the two-party system a "one-party system" because throughout his lifetime, there has never been an election that has made a large difference in policy, he said.

"Either party spends money and runs up debt," he said. "They fight and send troops all around the world. It doesn't change. Neither the Republicans nor Democrats have tried to stop the fact that the president can start a war without a declaration."

The two-party system leaves voters with low-quality politicians and a lack of diversity and options, said Robin Hayter, Victoria County Libertarian chairwoman.

"People aren't getting what they want, and the quality of politicians being produced doesn't match the demands," she said.

SHARE