Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's the result of our winner take all elections. We will always have a two party only system because of them. If a third party does emerge (which I think is likely over the next decades) it will replace either the Democrats or Republicans and we'll be back to two parties.
While it is not impossible for a 3rd party to rise, it's close to impossible for a 3rd party to ever become a strong political force. Our Constitution is essentially written with 2 parties in mind foremost. Everything in it favors 2 parties over 3 or more.
And over the past 200 years, the bi-party system has become so entrenched at all political levels that there just isn't enough money, influence, political power, or voter popularity to made a 3rd party viable. Population has a lot to do with it as well. Back before the Civil War when the Whigs rose and fell, but lasted one enough to get 2 presidents elected, the United States didn't have so many people. Our current numbers are like huge boulders. It doesn't take much to get a 300 lb. rock moving, but moving a 300 ton rock is a lot harder to budge.
That's neither good nor bad. It's just the way it is. Other nations have the same 2-party system, and they have the same problems with theirs as we do with ours.
We have two major philosophies: individualism, and collectivism. It seems ok to me to have two major parties. Democrats will always have the advantage in representing interests, and Republicans have the edge in representing ideas.
Until the academic scribblers come up with a better system, this is the best system that history has seen.
WestCobb has it about right. Of course we all know, there are many libertarians out there, in fact many of us lean that way, but by supporting the party all we are doing is hurting either of the two main parties. If the way we choose our Pres was different, a third or maybe even 4th strong could emerge. And yes, many of the third party candidates have been a little or a lot nuts.
The biggest issue with a third party is which third party? It is easy to say we need a third party, much harder to agree which third party, which means we will have two strong parties until people start voting more for specific third parties.
It's the result of our winner take all elections. We will always have a two party only system because of them. If a third party does emerge (which I think is likely over the next decades) it will replace either the Democrats or Republicans and we'll be back to two parties.
This has been the case in America since the Democratic-Republicans vs. the Federalists with the second president John Addams. We've had the Whigs coming up out of the ashes about 20 years after the Federalists died when Alexander Hamilton lost in his duel with Aaron Burr. After the Whigs we had the formative stages of the Democrat and Republican parties though at the time the Democrats were for states rights and the Republicans were more on the liberal side when it comes to civil rights AND the central government's power. By 1896 when the populist movement took over the Democrats with William Jennings Bryan and business money pour into the William McKinley campaign we saw the modern Republican party form.
I wish there was a viable third party option but the Libertarian party is small and more libertarians are becoming Republican elected officials because the Libertarian party has hardly ever won things and libertarian politicians saw an opportunity with becoming TEA Party Republicans. The two Pauls are that.
As for what third party we should have, one that is moderate like a Blue-Dog/New Democrat like Bill Clinton campaigned as or a Rockerfeller Republican similar to Romney. BOTH parties are pulled by the extreme forces in both parties whether it is the super-liberals or the conservatives. Maybe this way we could eliminate the rhetoric of a RINO because the alleged RINOs wont be Republicans.
It goes back to Duverger's Law, which is one of the core ideas in political science. While there are some exceptions to the general rule, a system such as the US will naturally tend to congeal around a two-party model, with third-parties serving as temporary aberrations.
It's a combination of:
-Plurality-rule elections
and
-Single-member districts
Those two characteristics make it very hard for a third party to capture any significant degree of power, since political races will tend to feature two frontrunner candidates, and weaker parties tend to fall into a spiral of loss and voter desertion against the two major parties. They are, at most, protest votes.
One situation in which Duverger's law could be overcome would be through ethnic bloc voting - eg, something more like Iraqi elections, in which political parties are identified with sects rather than with general policy stances.
It goes back to Duverger's Law, which is one of the core ideas in political science. While there are some exceptions to the general rule, a system such as the US will naturally tend to congeal around a two-party model, with third-parties serving as temporary aberrations.
It's a combination of:
-Plurality-rule elections
and
-Single-member districts
Those two characteristics make it very hard for a third party to capture any significant degree of power, since political races will tend to feature two frontrunner candidates, and weaker parties tend to fall into a spiral of loss and voter desertion against the two major parties. They are, at most, protest votes.
One situation in which Duverger's law could be overcome would be through ethnic bloc voting - eg, something more like Iraqi elections, in which political parties are identified with sects rather than with general policy stances.
Forgot good old Regionalism, that's what tore apart FDR's coalition.
It goes back to Duverger's Law, which is one of the core ideas in political science. While there are some exceptions to the general rule, a system such as the US will naturally tend to congeal around a two-party model, with third-parties serving as temporary aberrations.
It's a combination of:
-Plurality-rule elections
and
-Single-member districts
Those two characteristics make it very hard for a third party to capture any significant degree of power, since political races will tend to feature two frontrunner candidates, and weaker parties tend to fall into a spiral of loss and voter desertion against the two major parties. They are, at most, protest votes.
One situation in which Duverger's law could be overcome would be through ethnic bloc voting - eg, something more like Iraqi elections, in which political parties are identified with sects rather than with general policy stances.
This especially happens with changing districts. Before 1976, it was rare a traditional Democrat won the southern vote. More often than not it was a third party conservative Democrat or a Republican that was able to get their electorate. Besides Carter and Clinton, Democrats have not won the south since FDR's first election.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
