Researchers from the University of Rochester and UC San Diego have found that Americans benefit from major parties competing. The researchers discovered that the close competition between Republicans and Democrats led to political leaders passing bills that improved American lives.
The team evaluated the history of the political parties from 1880 to 2010 and noted two trends. The first trend was that more competition led to more spending on infrastructure and human capital. Another trend was an increase in human welfare due to expenditures.
According to Gerald Gamm from the University of Rochester, competition between political parties is suitable for the parties and the interest of the citizens.
Living in a one-party state was bad for Americans
The researchers also concluded that living in a blue or red state was terrible for Americans since such states did not give them a good life. These states include Texas, a red state, and California and New York, blue states. The researchers were surprised by this finding as many people believe that living in a one-party state could be less stressful because of the common opinions.
Moreover, people living in red or blue states have lower income, less education, and lower life expectancy than swing states.
Thad Kousser from UC San Diego explains that States with more competition spend more money on their residents. These States are also likely to educate their children who then graduate high school and have good incomes.
The researchers found that one-party states tend to have little development as the party pursues projects that benefit small portions of the population. The reason is that they already have power and don’t need to please their residents.
Parties in competition are always trying to seem better than the other
Two-party states, on the other hand, are always fishing for control. For this reason, they pursue significant projects that could benefit residents to preserve their reputations. Moreover, both parties do more to show the people how they differ.
The researchers note that the historical significance of competition could be reversed in a contemporary environment. Gamm points out that political parties agreed on a few policies in the past. However, these parties are now completely opposed to the other’s ideas. For this reason, it is challenging to know if two-party states could present the same benefits as before.