I feel that campaign fundraising and news media coverage, while significant, aren't the primary reason why there are two parties. When the Democratic and Republ

I feel that campaign fundraising and news media coverage, while significant, aren't the primary reason why there are two parties. When the Democratic and Republican parties first formed in America, they weren't nearly as well funded and connected are they are now. However, even in that time those two parties dominated the field. One single exception in Ross Perot does not disprove the rule of Duverger's law, and neither does the few victories of other fledgling third parties in America's history. Do you think that if campaign advertising and new coverage was banned, there would suddenly be a third party that springs up? If so, I disagree. I believe there is both a strong incentive for candidates who would start a third party to join one of the two parties, and for voters to vote for one of the two major parties to avoid "throwing away their vote". Any argument that proposes that attention and funding are more significant factors than the psychological factors of FPTP needs to first take the psychological factors into account. On top of that, we have evidence that countries which do not use FPTP voting have more political parties on average. > I would say that parties are disincentivized to form because they have great difficulty raising money and getting attention. Raising money and getting attention is winning elections. You can't have one without the other. The question is why they can't. The reason is FPTP voting incentivizes a two party system. It's a bit of a circular effect. The two parties dominate because they dominate. Sure, adding a third candidate makes winning take fewer votes, but you know what else makes winning easier? Joining an established party.