The idea, at least to me, is that the opposing sides of a two-party system, whether or not they are actually working together to do so, uphold the image of political competition whilst effectively changing nothing, so that those who benefit (and always have benefited) continue to do so, and those who don't benefit get to live on believing there is progress through this illusion of conflict.

Just for a random example, no candidate in America, regardless of party, would talk about major cuts to defense spending despite the fact that we are horribly in debt, spend more money on defense than, like what, every other country combined?, and many citizens disagree with this fiscal reality. Spending on defense might go up depending on a candidate choice, but it's unlikely that voting in our two party system could ever effectively interfere with the status quo of the military industrial complex, on which our government apparently depends.

I'd really just like to get a look at that book again. For being from the 1890's and not even American, it seemed to have a lot to offer in the way of justifying my political ambivalence.