Interesting. So was it Adams or Jefferson that wanted to enact policies which were detrimental to a large number of people?
Those early elections were also held under different rules - which were not "winner take all" - That is how Jefferson ended up as Adam's Vice President, so again this is just more evidence that winner take all is NOT the determining factor here. I would in fact argue that different factors perpetuating the two party system have been in play in different periods.
I never made an assertion that my proposed cycle was in effect during those early elections, or that there is on;y one type of cycle. There are many plausible alternate explanations and factors that could affect the prevalence of a 2 party system. Your chart doesn't necessarily cover them all, and it is over-simplistic and under-supported by actual evidence that it is accurate. I do not think it is entirely clear, that what we have today is even a two party system.
Politicians are package deals, so you will see the economics of a package deal played out here, and I think there are some empirical methods that could be used to determine which of the plausible factors that may be in play in any given time period..
1) Do polls show that people are voting for their party because they want a given set of policies enacted, or to oppose or repeal the policies previous enacted by the political opposition?
2) Do Polls show that people are voting for their candidate because they support them, or because they are choosing the "lesser of two evils"
3) When there is a switch in power, how frequently are the policies of the opposing party actually repealed?
I think knowing those poll results for each party in an election as well as the turnover rate for legislation would allow one to make a far better determination of which factors are important in perpetuating the 2 party system in a given cycle, or in determining if there is in fact a two party system in operation.
For instance, in the last election cycle I suspect you will find that the base of both parties to be voting against the lesser evil.. And much of the GOP establishment opposed Trump as candidate, and much of the Democrat base was disenfranchised by their own party's treatment of Bernie Sanders and selection of Hillary Clinton. Neither party is trusted by the voters who support it - so what factors would perpetuate that situation? IN the case of liberals, Loyalty to the Democrat party seems to be very tribal- A representative of that party can be a former KKK member, leave a woman to drown, womanize, and commit other crimes - and it will not affect their support with the base. A GOP representative can typically have his career destroyed over an infidelity or a single event in which inappropriate words are spoken. The GOP , being less tribal, voted for the only candidate they perceived as being outside the GOP establishment. Democrats still voted for Hillary Clinton despite her crimes ( If you read the applicable law, simply setting of that email server, regardless of intent, is grounds to bar her from ever holding another public office) In both cases, I suspect both parties were largely voting against the Greater evil and ignoring their own candidates short comings.
Go back another cycle and you will see a great amount of support for Barrack Obama and his polices among Democrats, but that most Republian's were voting against Obama and his polices and for the lesser of two evils ( from their perspective) and not for or in support of Mitt Romney ( who had enacted similar polices to Obama in his home state) - But here you see one side largely supporting the imposition of a given policy, the other side opposing it.
I suspect that the more detrimental a policy is perceived to be by a given group - the more likely that they are to be voting against that policy or candidate that represents it , and less likely to be voting for their own candidate and the polices pushed for there. And when an effort to push back against a policy is successful ( As the effort to repeal the ACA as been - giving control of the house, the senate and the Presidency to the party that, in theory, favors repeal) and a change of power occurs, it is key to see if that party actually does what its base has elected it to do. The GOP has - for decades - consistently under-performed in this area, and as a result, I think it is justified to see it as a captured party, and controlled opposition, simply doing the least possible to satisfy its base, while maintaining the status quo. It is also for this reason you see a candidate as reprehensible as Trump gaining success.. it is a vote of no confidence in the GOP leadership, just as the Tea Party movement was also a challenge to GOP leadership seen too unresponsive to the needs of its voting base. .
I hope that this makes it somewhat more apparent that "winner take all" - while certainly a factor in play, is not always the key factor. Also I hope this makes it clear that your assumption that we always have had a two party system in play in all periods of our history, may be in error.