Final answer:
The winner-take-all election system disadvantages third parties by ensuring only the candidate with the most votes wins, leading voters to choose strategically between the two major parties. This system fosters a political environment where third parties struggle to raise funds, gain voter support, and become viable contenders in elections.
Step-by-step explanation:
The winner-take-all election system works against third parties by ensuring that only the candidate with the most votes in an election wins, even if they do not secure a majority. In this system, third parties struggle to gain traction because of the perception that voting for them is a waste if they cannot win.
Voters often cast their ballots strategically for candidates they believe can win—usually from one of the two major parties—rather than voting for a third-party candidate they might prefer.
Furthermore, the two-party system is reinforced as third-party candidates typically don't receive enough votes to challenge the dominance of the existing major parties. The fear that voting for a third party might indirectly lead to the election of the least preferred candidate convinces many voters to choose the 'lesser of two evils.'
Due to their limited success, third parties also face challenges in fundraising and building a sustainable voter base. Consequently, the presence of winner-take-all elections contributes to a political landscape where third parties face significant structural disadvantages.