Final answer:
The EC system disadvantages third parties by using winner-take-all elections that reinforce two-party dominance and by using election rules that make ballot access difficult for these parties. Cultural expectations and strategic voting practices further entrench the major party system.
Step-by-step explanation:
The Electoral College (EC) system tends to discriminate against third parties and independent candidates in several ways. One of the primary hurdles is the winner-take-all format of U.S. elections, which essentially ensures that only the candidate with the majority of votes in a state receives its electoral votes, thereby disadvantilaging smaller parties that lack the resources of the two main parties. This nature of the system reinforces a two-party dominance, as it makes it significantly more challenging for third parties to convince voters of their viability when the structure favors the larger parties.
Election rules, often set by the parties in power, add to the challenges faced by third parties and independents. These rules can include stringent requirements for getting on the ballot, which necessitate a substantial investment of time and money - resources that third-party candidates often lack compared to their major party counterparts. Consequently, minor parties must expend extra effort on these logistical barriers rather than campaigning directly to voters about their platforms.
Additionally, the political culture in the U.S. tends to encourage voter loyalty to the dominant parties. This cultural expectation, combined with strategic voting practices where voters opt for 'the lesser of two evils' rather than a third party with low chances of winning, perpetuates the two-party system. Despite these drawbacks, third parties continue to play a role in highlighting specific issues and providing alternative voices in the political discourse, albeit with limited electoral success.