America's Duopoly

[Da Skinna]

Was America founded on a two party system?

[Barry Goldwater]

I don't think so, there were no real (official) parties at the beginning...but yeah, American politics always seemed to be dominated by two megaparties - the Federalists & Democratic-Republicans after Washington, the Democrats & the Whigs (and before that the National Republicans), and now the Democrats & the Republicans.

Oh, how I hate the two-party system

[Last Roman]

Was America founded on a two party system?

well, yes and no.

long story short, there were two main factions (they were not organized political parties yet) founded on two political ideologies: federalists and anti-federalists. The former wanted a strong central gov't while the latter wanted state's rights to be more important than the central (or federal) gov't. These ideas eventually become organized into the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans (anti-federalists), the second being the ancestor to the modern Democratic Party.

Hence why today we dont have a viable third party, the country was founded on two political ideologies, where as Europe, during it's revolutions of the 1800s, had several factions vying for power.

[Farnan]

well, yes and no.

long story short, there were two main factions (they were not organized political parties yet) founded on two political ideologies: federalists and anti-federalists. The former wanted a strong central gov't while the latter wanted state's rights to be more important than the central (or federal) gov't. These ideas eventually become organized into the Whigs (federalists) and Democratic-Republicans (anti-federalists), the second being the ancestor to the modern Democratic Party.

Whigs and Federalists are not the same...


The first two parties were the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans.

The Federalists died out and the DR became the Democrats.

The Democrats split after the election of Jackson into the Whigs and Democrats.

The Northern Whigs merged with the Free Soilers and other Third Parties and formed the Republican Party.

That is how we got Republicans and Democrats.

The Democratic-Republicans were ironically the ancestors of both parties.

And the reason we don't have a third party is when one gets popular it gets its ideas stolen by a big one and its members merge.

[Last Roman]

Whigs and Federalists are not the same...

ya, corrected it

And the reason we don't have a third party is when one gets popular it gets its ideas stolen by a big one and its members merge.

that as well. But the reason that we have two strong parties in the first place stems from the fact that we really only had two major political ideologies competing during the US' founding.

[Da Skinna]

How's it been working?

[GeneralLee]

How's it been working?

Just got done studying weimar, so Id say pretty good.

[cfmonkey45]

Was America founded on a two party system?

Federalists and Anti-Federalists (a.k.a. the Jeffersonian Republicans, a.k.a the Democratic-Republicans under Jackson, a.k.a. the modern Democratic Party).

[Captain Jin]

Sadly, even though Washington warned of the evils of political parties and of course the fact that two is not good. Even though he leaned toward Federalists.

[WrathofTulkas]

It was not founded upon a two party system! Washington upon leaving the presidency warned us all haha. Nobody did listen I guess.

[Da Skinna]

Can the American people really choose different foreign policy? Or is it by two parties whose foreign policy has been unchanged since Kennedy?

[Farnan]

Can the American people really choose different foreign policy? Or is it by two parties whose foreign policy has been unchanged since Kennedy?

Unchanged since Kennedy?

Have you been paying attention to US foreign policy at all?

[Lord Feloric's Ambassador]

The two-party system has its problems, but it does serve some purposes.

[Hunter Makoy]

Was America founded on a two party system?

No in that Washington strongly cautioned against it, and yes in that everyone pretty much split into federalists/anti-federalists anyway.

It certainly has had its problems in that many times positions are based on "party ideals" instead of the true ideals of the people in the party. It does have some advantages though in that each base is broader and so each party can put out a more all encompassing philosophy. So you end up were people are choosing a party based on the stance on all the issues, rather then just one or two particular ones.

[Admiral Piett]

Our system of government was NOT designed to be controlled by a two party bloc system. That's why nothing really gets done anymore and there is little to no progress unless one party dominates all. I don't see anything wrong with there being multiple parties. The increase in competition means that there is far more vigor and enthusiasm and voter participation. That also means that Congressional deadlocks are harder to come-by.

[wilting]

The US's first past the post electoral system and it being a Presidential democracy encourages a two party system. Although it is an an amazing extreme of an absolute two-party system.

If it was not intended to be a two-party system, then it should have been designed with a proportional representation electoral system and as a parliamentary democracy.

It's either a case of incompetence/compromise or intention.

The system creates the self-interested behaviour of sticking with one of two large camps. Only by changing the electoral system will the US ever gain a more representative distribution of seats. Of course, the dominant parties will never concede to that, as it is not in their self interest.

[Zephyrus]

The problem we have now in our government will not be corrected by the continuation of the two-party system. We need a 3rd party, backed by the popular majority, to wash this "stimulus/guns" bs away and create a new system of government that gives more economical and political power to the states. That's the only hope I see here of combating big government.

[JP226]

That's why nothing really gets done anymore and there is little to no progress unless one party dominates all.

how is that a bad thing? I mean the less a government can do the less problems it causes.