Final answer:
True, the winner-take-all electoral system in the U.S. hinders the creation of third parties and may dissuade voting among those who feel unrepresented by the major parties, leading to a predominantly two-party political landscape.
Step-by-step explanation:
The winner-take-all electoral system strongly discourages the formation of third parties in the United States. This is because, in such a system, only the candidate with the most votes wins, which often leaves third-party candidates with no representation, even if they have substantial support. Due to this, voters may feel that casting a ballot for a third party is a 'waste,' as these parties have a minimal chance of winning in a winner-take-all context. As a result, voters may end up casting strategic votes for one of the two major parties instead of voting for a candidate they genuinely support.
Moreover, winner-take-all elections can discourage voting altogether among individuals who believe that neither of the main parties represents their interests. Voters may feel disenchanted with their limited options and opt out of the voting process. In the U.S., third parties like the Populist Party and the Reform Party have historically struggled to gain a foothold in the political landscape due to these systemic barriers in winner-take-all elections, which solidifies the dominance of the existing two major parties.