Then, as a result the pattern is repeated. Countries want stability within their government, especially, so that it is run properly. The United States has been able to accomplish this with the two party system in place, while countries with multi party systems cannot achieve stability.
A two party system is able to filter out extremist ideas or elements that attempt in taking over. The multi-party system brings the extreme, and often destabilizing, elements into the political system and thus the government. A positive aspect in the two party system is that extreme elements, if not already filtered out, are put into the center of the political spectrum and the voters decide on their credibility. This is a safety net that is built into the two party system that cannot be in a multi party system. An example of an extreme element is when the Nazi party gained enough credibility and was part of the German coalition. Another party was not able to gain victory over the Nazi's because there wasn't a main, or major, party already in place that would have spoken up against the Nazi's ideas and gained electoral victory. So, the filter that is subtly set in place by having a two party system is vital to keep extremist ideas, like the Nazi's had, away. .
In the United States, the two party systems are based on Anglo-Saxon tradition and on the electoral system. The multi party system uses this in their defense because it is difficult in a two party system for small parties to be established. However, the Electoral College is meant to give more power to the smaller states, so that the outcome of a presidential election includes the votes of smaller populated states, so all voices are heard. Multi party advocates say that more parties are better because each party is individualized in one strong point that they focus on. Although, this is not a realistic, effective idea. In an election with a multi party system, a majority is not formed when a person and party is elected.