There is no evidence there was anything against a two party system. To say otherwise is balderdash.
They did not have anything much in mind except balancing the rights of the small colonies to the large ones.
The two party system evolved because it provides what the Constitution requires. It meets the Constitutional requirements because it allows the States to set the rules.
“There is no evidence there was anything against a two party system. To say otherwise is balderdash.”
____________________
Give it up, bert. The two party system (any ‘party’ system) we have is ugly and dangerous. The founders used the ‘factions’ to describe them, which is more correct.
First read this: The Debate on the Constitution, Library of America, 1993.
Page 404, James Madison (no, I’m not going to transcribe it all for you!)
“.....the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties”
A quote from George Washington’s final presidential address in 1796:
“To the efficacy and permanency of your union a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliances, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute.......I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy....
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged.....”
Source: J.D. Richardson, ed., Compilation of Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol.1 (1907), 213.