One of the biggest mistakes people make in politics is believing that if they don’t get everything they want from their own party, the answer is to split away from it.

History says otherwise.

Whether it’s a socialist movement pulling Democrats further to the left, a nationalist movement pulling Republicans further to the right, or any faction deciding it can build a successful third party, the result is almost always the same. It weakens the party it came from and strengthens the opposition.

America is, was, and likely will remain a two-party constitutional republic. Our election system simply isn’t designed to reward splinter parties. It rewards coalitions.

History proves it.

In 1912, former President Theodore Roosevelt broke away from the Republicans to form the Progressive, or “Bull Moose,” Party after losing the Republican nomination. Roosevelt actually finished ahead of Republican President William Howard Taft in the general election, but because the Republican vote was split, Democrat Woodrow Wilson won the presidency with only about 42 percent of the popular vote.

In 1992, Ross Perot won nearly 19 percent of the popular vote—one of the strongest third-party showings in modern history. Yet he didn’t win a single electoral vote. Most political analysts believe his candidacy changed the dynamics of the election and contributed to Bill Clinton defeating incumbent George H. W. Bush.

In 2000, many Democrats still argue that Ralph Nader drew enough votes away from Al Gore in Florida to help elect George W. Bush. Whether you agree with that conclusion or not, it demonstrates how a relatively small number of votes can have enormous consequences in a closely divided nation.

These movements generated headlines. They generated enthusiasm. But they didn’t build lasting national parties. Instead, they mostly changed who won the election.

Every election eventually comes down to one simple question: Which of the two major parties is going to govern?

You may agree with 95 percent of what your preferred party stands for and strongly disagree with the other 5 percent. That’s called democracy. No political party is ever going to represent every opinion of every voter.

Too many people let one issue, one candidate, one personality, or one disagreement determine their entire vote. They may not like the party’s nominee. They may not like the president. They may be a single-issue voter. They may become so frustrated that they vote for a third party—or don’t vote at all.

In a two-party system, those decisions rarely send a message. They usually help elect the party that is farthest from their own beliefs.

Politics isn’t about finding the perfect candidate. That candidate doesn’t exist.

It’s about deciding which party’s overall direction most closely matches your values, your vision for America, and the future you want for your children and grandchildren.

Fight for your issues. Debate within your party. Vote in the primaries. Support candidates who best represent your beliefs. Push your party to improve. That’s how change happens.

But once the primary is over and the general election begins, the question changes. It’s no longer about perfection. It’s about direction.

Don’t let one or two issues outweigh dozens of others. Don’t let your opinion of one politician blind you to the broader agenda of an entire party. And don’t convince yourself that staying home or casting a protest vote somehow doesn’t matter.

It does.

In American politics, divided parties usually lose. United parties usually win.

If you truly want to influence the future of this country, stay engaged, work to improve the party that most closely aligns with your values, and remember this:

In a two-party republic, the biggest gift you can give your political opponent is helping divide your own side.