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.
We have plenty of 3rd parties in the US. They aren't viable because no one really wants them.
Plus the winner-take-all nature of US politics pretty much ensures that we end up with two parties.
Multi-party systems are frankly no better and in many ways worse because the locus of compromise is further from the voters. So be careful what you wish for with this 3rd party business.
Here in the US a political candidate has to form a majority coalition of VOTERS which means coming up with policy proposals that appeal to a majority of voters. Every US presidential election in the past 100 years except for Bush in 2000 and Trump in 2016 resulted in the candidate winning who won the most votes.
By contrast, in multi-party systems like say Israel or many countries in Europe you wind up with a variety of small ideological parties that each only capture a small percentage of the electorate. But then the formation of the government and of government policy is done through party-to-party negotiations and coalition building in which the voters are NOT involved. It is all wheeling and dealing and bribery (in the form of offering cabinet positions etc.). So you end up with governments like the current ruling coalition in Israel that do not represent the will of the majority but instead represent the ability of Netanyahu to peace together a coalition of small extremist parties by offering each of them something. Netanyahu himself has only won a small percentage of votes. In the last election his party got a whopping 23% of the vote yet he is still prime minister. No president could ever get elected in the US with only 23% of the vote.
In every democracy, the ability to rule depends on reaching a governing majority. In the US with a 2-party system we are guaranteed that the majority is decided by the voters. In multi-party system it is decided by internal party negotiations rather than voters.
This is very accurate.
Whenever people say that we need a third party, I'm always a bit perplexed, because we already have way more than two parties. The problem is that our political system, as outlined in the US constitution and replicated in the state constitutions, encourages a two party system and suppresses the rise of additional parties. Instead, we have a wide diversity of viewpoints within the two parties, which up until recently has worked for us reasonably well. Unfortunately, the more extreme elements within the two parties have lately been demanding orthodoxy from the more moderate majority of each party (think hard right Republicans talking about RINO's and holding McCarthy hostage and the tiny Socialist wing of the Democrats publicly denigrating moderates like Manchin who they disagree with.) This has dragged the two parties toward their political poles, and reduced the power of the moderate majority.
I personally think this problem would be mostly solved by banning gerrymandering and coming up with a more representative system than the electoral college. I think that would drag our politics back toward the middle instead of a wildly oscillating back and forth between political extremes. Then maybe people wouldn't feel so disenfranchised when their preferred party is out of power.
Whenever people say that we need a third party, I'm always a bit perplexed, because we already have way more than two parties. The problem is that our political system, as outlined in the US constitution and replicated in the state constitutions, encourages a two party system and suppresses the rise of additional parties. Instead, we have a wide diversity of viewpoints within the two parties, which up until recently has worked for us reasonably well. Unfortunately, the more extreme elements within the two parties have lately been demanding orthodoxy from the more moderate majority of each party (think hard right Republicans talking about RINO's and holding McCarthy hostage and the tiny Socialist wing of the Democrats publicly denigrating moderates like Manchin who they disagree with.) This has dragged the two parties toward their political poles, and reduced the power of the moderate majority.
I personally think this problem would be mostly solved by banning gerrymandering and coming up with a more representative system than the electoral college. I think that would drag our politics back toward the middle instead of a wildly oscillating back and forth between political extremes. Then maybe people wouldn't feel so disenfranchised when their preferred party is out of power.
Where is that outlined in the Constitution? When the Constitution was written there really weren't any political parties. The Democratic party was formed about 40 years after the Constitution was ratified. The Republican Party about 55 years after the Constitution. The two party system developed well after the Constitution was written.
George Washington was never affiliated with any political party. Then there were quite a few parties until the Democrats and Republicans formed a duopoly.
Where is that outlined in the Constitution? When the Constitution was written there really weren't any political parties. The Democratic party was formed about 40 years after the Constitution was ratified. The Republican Party about 55 years after the Constitution. The two party system developed well after the Constitution was written.
George Washington was never affiliated with any political party. Then there were quite a few parties until the Democrats and Republicans formed a duopoly.
I didn't mean to imply that the constitution mandates a two party system. What I meant is that the political system that it outlines naturally favors the development of a two party system. It took a little while for the two parties that would eventually become dominant to form and take hold, but once it did, the electoral system we have perpetuated it.
Where is that outlined in the Constitution? When the Constitution was written there really weren't any political parties. The Democratic party was formed about 40 years after the Constitution was ratified. The Republican Party about 55 years after the Constitution. The two party system developed well after the Constitution was written.
George Washington was never affiliated with any political party. Then there were quite a few parties until the Democrats and Republicans formed a duopoly.
The electoral college and winner take all nature of EVERY political election in the US more or less ensures that there will be two parties. Or, more accurately, no more than two major political parties.
In multi-party systems minor parties can win representation in legislatures with only small minority showings in elections, like say 10%.
For example, there is a Green Party in both the US and Germany. In Germany's most recent legislative elections in 2021 the Green Party got 14% of the vote and with that 14% managed to get 118 out of 736 seats in the Bundestag. In the US a 14% showing in Congressional elections would earn exactly ZERO seats in Congress.
We would have to restructure the entire system of government in the US to afford minority parties representation in Congress like that. And then we would probably have to abandon the presidential system of government and adopt a parliamentary system so that coalition governments could actually govern. Otherwise pretty much zero would ever get done if the president is one party and Congress was a coalition of different parties. It would be gridlock on steroids.
There is a lot of naivety in this post. It reads like a second grade civics lesson.
You assume the following:
1) each of the two parties currently have platforms voters want,
2) elected officials do what they say after winning elections,
3) the mob (voters) is motivated to research, contemplate and make intelligent decisions.
We are a constitutional republic. We elect representatives to negotiate on our behalf. If there were 2 or 4 or 10 parties, negotiations would be tougher BUT - outcomes are likely more in line with population overall.
The reason this post exists is because a minority of OR voters is fed up with the "winner take all mentality" the two party system creates.
A multi-party system in which Eastern Oregon is represented by a minority party representing say 10% of the vote isn't going to provide any more representation than the current system. You still need to reach a majority to pass any legislation at all. Whether Eastern Oregon is represented by say 5 statue legislators of a minority "secession" party, or whether they have 5 representatives who are members of the current minority Republican party makes zero difference whatsoever. It is still only 5 votes in the legislature out of 30.
You think reaching a voting majority is going to be any easier if the state is fractured into multiple parties? Look at how long governments last in places like Israel.
If there are actual compromises to be had, there is no reason why they can't be reached with 2 parties compared to 6. You still need to reach majority votes in both houses of the legislature and attain the support of the governor. The problem today is that too many politicians would rather run to Fox News or Twitter to perform for a national audience than roll up their sleeves and build support for what they want to do locally. And be willing to make compromises.
The electoral college and winner take all nature of EVERY political election in the US more or less ensures that there will be two parties. Or, more accurately, no more than two major political parties.
In multi-party systems minor parties can win representation in legislatures with only small minority showings in elections, like say 10%.
For example, there is a Green Party in both the US and Germany. In Germany's most recent legislative elections in 2021 the Green Party got 14% of the vote and with that 14% managed to get 118 out of 736 seats in the Bundestag. In the US a 14% showing in Congressional elections would earn exactly ZERO seats in Congress.
We would have to restructure the entire system of government in the US to afford minority parties representation in Congress like that. And then we would probably have to abandon the presidential system of government and adopt a parliamentary system so that coalition governments could actually govern. Otherwise pretty much zero would ever get done if the president is one party and Congress was a coalition of different parties. It would be gridlock on steroids.
The electoral college is a major flaw in American democracy, but it doesn't prevent more parties. More parties only increase the chances that no candidate will get a majority of the electoral college, and that the congress would have to decide the election.
The electoral college has been around since the Constitution was ratified, but the Democrats and Republicans have only had a duopoly since the 1860s. So the electoral college supported more then two parties for quite a while. If people would just stop voting for the Democrats and Republicans we could have more options.
Location: We_tside PNW (Columbia Gorge) / CO / SA TX / Thailand
34,754 posts, read 58,140,793 times
Reputation: 46247
The 'better' of 2 evils seldom equals a competent, responsible, representative government.
Very indicative of how low we (USA) stoop to accept mediocrity.
Healthcare
Education
Government
....
Results are quite evident in our newly accepted decline of society.
Are you feeling good and safe about your neighborhood, your city, county, state, nation?
Some of us perceive and experience decline in,
Healthcare
Education
Government
...
Society.
The solutions don't currently exist within our 2 party political offerings.
Perfect solution for the "I've got mine, scrxw you" crowd.
Too bad, So sad for the builders and maintainers of a caring, progressive, and vibrant community, state and nation.
The electoral college is a major flaw in American democracy, but it doesn't prevent more parties. More parties only increase the chances that no candidate will get a majority of the electoral college, and that the congress would have to decide the election.
The electoral college has been around since the Constitution was ratified, but the Democrats and Republicans have only had a duopoly since the 1860s. So the electoral college supported more then two parties for quite a while. If people would just stop voting for the Democrats and Republicans we could have more options.
To get a single electoral college vote, a 3rd party like the Greens or Libertarians would need to actually WIN a state. Which is exceedingly unlikely in our current environment where party politics are national.
In any event, we have pretty much always had two parties since Washington. George Washington was the only non-partisan president.
From 1790 - 1824 it was the Federalists under Hamilton versus the Democratic-Republicans under Jefferson.
From about 1828 - 1850 it was the Democrats under Jackson and Polk versus the Whigs under Harrison, Tyler, and Taylor.
And from 1850 - present it has been Democrats vs. Republicans.
The only time we have had third parties emerge to prominence is when one rose to replace one of the two existing parties.
To get a single electoral college vote, a 3rd party like the Greens or Libertarians would need to actually WIN a state. Which is exceedingly unlikely in our current environment where party politics are national.
In any event, we have pretty much always had two parties since Washington. George Washington was the only non-partisan president.
From 1790 - 1824 it was the Federalists under Hamilton versus the Democratic-Republicans under Jefferson.
From about 1828 - 1850 it was the Democrats under Jackson and Polk versus the Whigs under Harrison, Tyler, and Taylor.
And from 1850 - present it has been Democrats vs. Republicans.
The only time we have had third parties emerge to prominence is when one rose to replace one of the two existing parties.
It's unlikely because nobody is going to vote for them. If the majority of people in a state voted for the Green Party then they would win that state.
In the first election in 1789, 12 candidates got electoral college votes, and the winner was not a member of any political party. That is how it's supposed to be. Even as late as 1968 the elections were not just Red and Blue.
The electoral college is a terrible system. But even if we got rid of it, we would still have just two parties, if that is all people are going to vote for.
American presidential election, 1789
George Washington 695
John Adams 34
John Jay 9
R.H. Harrison 6
John Rutledge 6
John Hancock 4
George Clinton 3
Samuel Huntington 2
John Milton 2
James Armstrong 1
Benjamin Lincoln 1
Edward Telfair 1
not voted 44
American presidential election, 1968
Richard M. Nixon 301
Hubert H. Humphrey 191
George C. Wallace 46
The electoral college is a major flaw in American democracy, but it doesn't prevent more parties. More parties only increase the chances that no candidate will get a majority of the electoral college, and that the congress would have to decide the election.
The electoral college has been around since the Constitution was ratified, but the Democrats and Republicans have only had a duopoly since the 1860s. So the electoral college supported more then two parties for quite a while. If people would just stop voting for the Democrats and Republicans we could have more options.
Before Andrew Jackson and the convention system eouldn't even call them "parties." There were like-minded politicians loosely aligned along similar lines. "States Rights Men" and stuff like that.
The convention system formalized it and made it easier for people to understand when they expanded the franchise to all adult males.
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.
