Third Parties in U.S.A.

[PointOfViewGun]

We have dominance of two parties in U.S.A. Namely, the Republican Party and the Democrat Party. In the recent years we've seen the movement of Tea Party inside the Republican Party. While the media started to discuss if this movement died down they managed to raise their voice substantially. At the moment it looks like it's too intimidating for any important figure to risk their political career to rally support for a third party.

So, could the existing dominant parties divide into different parties like a split of Reagen Democrats or Tea Party Republicans?

Why can't a third party ever gather sufficient support to take a substantial amount of seats in the Congress?

[CtrlAltDe1337]

A third party won't become a major power in the U.S. because we use a plurality system.

For example, lets say the next election goes like this:
Dems: 44% of the vote
GOP: 36%
Tea Party: 20%

The Democrats would win even though they didn't win a majority of the electorate. All you have to win is a plurality (more than any other single party). If the GOP didn't split into a Tea Party faction, they would get 58% of the vote and win. Thus, there is no reason to split into more parties. Political parties in the U.S. devolve into the party of the president, and everyone else.

[molonthegreat]

There really isn't a need for a third party in the US since both the major parties are all over the political spectrum and unlike parties in Europe you don't have to abide to any party program to run for either party, I mean in the democrats you have anything from fiscally conservative hawks to social democrats and in the GOP you have everything from bible thumping neocons to isolationist libertarians.

[Xanthippus of Sparta]

There's certainly a need, and it's only going to get more pronounced as time goes on most likely, if certain things don't change.

Occupy Wall Street and the inital Tea Party rise had one thing in common: people across the board are convinced that politicans are not listening to them.

Different Constitutional rights are in jeopardy depending on who is in charge. Cash equals free speech (in the eyes of the SCOTUS) and, thus, powerful political influence perhaps more than ever before. Corporations are more powerful than at any time in US history since the Gilded Age. Special Interests are often at the helm of policy, across the board.

It's not a pretty picture if you look beneath the surface.

[Teutonic Warlord]

So, could the existing dominant parties divide into different parties like a split of Reagen Democrats or Tea Party Republicans?

Potentially, yes, but the possibility of that is low. Still, it is there.

Why can't a third party ever gather sufficient support to take a substantial amount of seats in the Congress?

An American government course can show you how complex this answer surprisingly is.

For starters, the US has been a two party system ever since Adams and Jefferson faced off for the presidency as the Federalist and Democratic Republican parties, respectively. Since then, different parties have gained prominence, but we have always (or nearly always) had two main parties.

Next, the various levels of US governments have passed legislation making it difficult or impossible for third parties and independents to run. Some states, for example, only allow two parties to run on the ballot, so you will have to run as one or the other in those states. Since such legislation was most likely easily passed by Democrats and Republicans alike, it would be very difficult to get the legislation repealed.

Incumbents also naturally have an easy time being reelected. It is crazy, considering the rating for Congress is often so pathetic, but people vote for names they know before names they don't. Incumbents are reelected at least 75-80% of the time. Also, members of Congress have access to unlimited printing and mailing as a perk for their job. They can send out campaigning material for little to no cost.

Then, you have trends. Nurture aspects will influence a person to become part of one of the two parties. Many people identify themselves with the same political party as that of their parents (or the parent they were closer to), for example. A third party doesn't have the advantage in nature and nurture aspects of people's political ideology. Also, the only good time for an independent or third party to run is between presidential elections. The party that wins the presidential election will almost always gain Congressional seats. Then, between presidential elections, the president's party always loses Congressional seats (only FDR, Clinton, and George W. Bush have avoided this trend, each once, I believe). Thus, that would be their only good chance, but less people vote in those elections, again making things difficult.

Finally, the two parties provide strength for their candidates. The two parties can provide money, endorsements, etc., to their candidates. Third parties can't guarantee such support since their funds are much smaller, and endorsements are harder to come by. You aren't likely to get an endorsement from a Republican or Democrat when you are running against one.

[DarthShizNit]

A new party can certainly arise and take the place of one of the current parties, but just the way the system works, 2 parties just works better for american politics.

[RollingWave]

The key issue is election rules, with the way election rules are setup in the US the odds of a 3rd party succeeding is slim at best.

For 3rd party to have a chance in the US, the election law need to be changed, right now most legislative election is picking 1 representative per district. if it's changed so that it picks multiple winners in a (usually larger) district, then the odds of small party winning becomes immensely higher.

A simple example would be, the state of Washington have 10 seats in Congress, right now that means they divide it into 10 district and each choose a winner, if they change the rule so that they divided it instead into just 2 district and each pick 5 winners, then the outcome would change dramatically.

Though I'd think that if there is one thing the 2 party CAN agree on these days it's that they don't want to lose their domination of US politics

[Principe Alessandro]

I think because the two main US parties represent a wide spectrum of ideologies while the ideological foundations of European parties are really circumscribed. More or less republicans and democrats are like federations of various ideologies so all the ideologies are represented without the need of a multiparty system.

[RollingWave]

I think because the two main US parties represent a wide spectrum of ideologies while the ideological foundations of European parties are really circumscribed. More or less republicans and democrats are like federations of various ideologies so all the ideologies are represented without the need of a multiparty system.

That is completely false, I'd bet everything I have that if they change electoral rules to something closer to European onces, then 3rd / 4th parties will quickly emerge.

The fact is that the when you represent a wide specturm it also means you represent nothing, which is a fairly good summary of both US parties right now. much of their supposed idealogy are in huge conflict, such as the obvious conflict of Neo-Conservatives (for Military spending) and Fiscal Conservatives (for balanced budgets and smaller government spending in general). not to meantion that Social conservatives may or may not line up with either of those to begin with.

While the Democrats are even worse, since they're a collection of many single issue ideologs (Enviornmentalist , Rights Activists etc) which usually have little to do with each other.

With changes to voting rules, Republicans are likely going to split half while Dems may split even further than that.

[Principe Alessandro]

That is completely false, I'd bet everything I have that if they change electoral rules to something closer to European onces, then 3rd / 4th parties will quickly emerge.

The fact is that the when you represent a wide specturm it also means you represent nothing, which is a fairly good summary of both US parties right now. much of their supposed idealogy are in huge conflict, such as the obvious conflict of Neo-Conservatives (for Military spending) and Fiscal Conservatives (for balanced budgets and smaller government spending in general). not to meantion that Social conservatives may or may not line up with either of those to begin with.

While the Democrats are even worse, since they're a collection of many single issue ideologs (Enviornmentalist , Rights Activists etc) which usually have little to do with each other.

With changes to voting rules, Republicans are likely going to split half while Dems may split even further than that.

Maybe the electoral system is the main factor for the current US bipolar political landscape but if the Democratic party and the Republican party represented only one ideological movement then it would be impossible for them to monopolize the leftist and the rightist electorates.

[Admiral Piett]

We need them. Badly.

But the only way we can make them is if we:

Institute uniform federal elections
Relax ballot access laws
Abolish or make serious changes to the electoral college

[Col. Tartleton]

I don't know what the benefit is. A third party creates a 1984 situation where Oceania has always been allies with East Asia against Eurasia.

I'd rather see a one party system (thus no parties) where each politician has their own views and they vote up and down as they stand. The way Washington intended. Political parties are the problem. We need less of them, not more. I'd rather see an "America Party" with the people voting for whoever they want and qualifies for the elections.

We've been a two party nation. We've never had more than 4 political parties in play... and then immediately after we had a freaking civil war because effectively one of the parties told the other three to screw off and seceded. That's basically the history of the civil war. Lincoln ran Republican, Douglas ran Northern Democrat, Bell ran Unionist, and Breckenridge ran Southern Democrat. Well, the Southern Democrat states other than Delaware seceded (or tried to in Marylands case), the Northern Democrats and Unionists got the "neutral" border states who were down with slavery but not so hot about fighting over it, and the Republicans got the Northern states.

That's what fractured parties means in the US. It is not a good sign. We're a country open to religions and peoples from all over the world. We're a country without a state language, state religion, state people, or anything that unifies us. We've already got two highly divisive parties (as is their right). Less is more. We need unity. We need an America that speaks English, is nominally Christian/Humanist in terms of values, and a shared culture. Divisions always turn to hatred and violence. We need to find peaceful solutions.

And I don't mean we all have to agree with everything, but I think we need to be coming from a certain place which is uniquely American instead of a cacophony of different voices from all sides. JFK and Nixon were the same sort of guy, they were "Cold Warriors", JFK was just more like able. The difference is that JFK never got caught for his dirty tricks (stole the election in 1960) and Nixon is synonymous with them (stole the election in 1972). While 1860 was a boiling point, 1960 was a personality contest by and large. That's the reality. Did they disagree? Sure. On fine points.

We were all Americans if only because we were all not Soviets.

[Rolling Thunder]

I don't know what the benefit is. A third party creates a 1984 situation where Oceania has always been allies with East Asia against Eurasia.

Except, of course, without the constant war, the totalitarianism or in fact any of the salient points of 1984, so exactly how you came to that particular comparison remains entirely mysterious to me and indeed to all sane people.

I'd rather see a one party system (thus no parties) where each politician has their own views and they vote up and down as they stand. The way Washington intended. Political parties are the problem. We need less of them, not more. I'd rather see an "America Party" with the people voting for whoever they want and qualifies for the elections.

The unfortunate problem with this is that elementary game theory (or indeed analysis) demonstrates that there is too much political gain to have by merging into political parties, due to the FPTP system. Ironically, a PR system would allow for something closer to that (and given the increasing fragmentation of European politics it would suggest that is where it is heading). FPTP mathematically encourages political merges into a 2-party system. The only reason GB even has other parties is due to the sheer pig-headedness of the British population!

That's what fractured parties means in the US. It is not a good sign. We're a country open to religions and peoples from all over the world. We're a country without a state language, state religion, state people, or anything that unifies us. We've already got two highly divisive parties (as is their right). Less is more. We need unity. We need an America that speaks English, is nominally Christian/Humanist in terms of values, and a shared culture. Divisions always turn to hatred and violence. We need to find peaceful solutions.

You, my friend, want to possess cake, and eat cake, and still possess the cake after eating. Centralization, patriotism, authoritarianism, nationalism, crisis - these are what pull people together, unify them. Dissent, liberty, free speech, prosperity - these drive them to pursue their own beliefs and their own success. You're in essence expecting to hybridize two fundamentally opposed political phenomena and for it to somehow work.

[Teutonic Warlord]

Except, of course, without the constant war, the totalitarianism or in fact any of the salient points of 1984, so exactly how you came to that particular comparison remains entirely mysterious to me and indeed to all sane people.

I may be wrong, but I think the point he might be making is that the three political parties would behave like the three superpowers of 1984. The parties would make temporary alliances to take down one and convince their members their allied party are good friends. Meanwhile, all parties would use backroom deals so that the alliances and 'wars' between the parties change so no one can get ahead.

Honestly, I am not sure this would actually happen, but the stalemate could very well be a possibility. Independent voters determine the presidency and not simply the numbers of one party, so they somewhat act like a third party without many/any candidates. However, I believe both parties try to gain support from independents instead of fighting them and the other party.

[Col. Tartleton]

Except, of course, without the constant war, the totalitarianism or in fact any of the salient points of 1984, so exactly how you came to that particular comparison remains entirely mysterious to me and indeed to all sane people.

Yeah, that sounds a bit crazy, but I do mean what Teutonic Warlord suggested.


The unfortunate problem with this is that elementary game theory (or indeed analysis) demonstrates that there is too much political gain to have by merging into political parties, due to the FPTP system. Ironically, a PR system would allow for something closer to that (and given the increasing fragmentation of European politics it would suggest that is where it is heading). FPTP mathematically encourages political merges into a 2-party system. The only reason GB even has other parties is due to the sheer pig-headedness of the British population!

Indeed.



You, my friend, want to possess cake, and eat cake, and still possess the cake after eating. Centralization, patriotism, authoritarianism, nationalism, crisis - these are what pull people together, unify them. Dissent, liberty, free speech, prosperity - these drive them to pursue their own beliefs and their own success. You're in essence expecting to hybridize two fundamentally opposed political phenomena and for it to somehow work.

A unified actor is going to be more effective at anything than a fragmented actor. You can go against the grain, you can speak your mind, you can do your own thing, you can make a buck, but when there is a crisis you have to be able to do your part.

A Democracy empowers everyone to use their voice and then expects those people to accept the decision of the people for the most part. If you're against a war, speak your mind, but when war is declared you ought to be focused on winning the war. You can disagree with policies, but there are forms of dissent which can become odorous.

[Rolling Thunder]

A unified actor is going to be more effective at anything than a fragmented actor.

And if you look at two-party systems, you'll find nothing so ideologically fragmented. The Democrats are everything from European socialists to social conservatives. The Republicans contain Libertarians, social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, outright imperialists and other hosts of factions within the same party!

You can go against the grain, you can speak your mind, you can do your own thing, you can make a buck, but when there is a crisis you have to be able to do your part.

Nice rhetoric. Define "Do your part".

[Col. Tartleton]

And if you look at two-party systems, you'll find nothing so ideologically fragmented. The Democrats are everything from European socialists to social conservatives. The Republicans contain Libertarians, social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, outright imperialists and other hosts of factions within the same party!

Indeed. But if they broke up into their sub units we'd never see a government. Better to just have one party, but I'll take two.

Nice rhetoric. Define "Do your part".

Work towards the common good of the state. If you're at war, maybe not protesting your soldiers and hoping they die... If you're in a financial crisis maybe not and moan about your entitlements. Being in good taste. Sacrifice a little.

You know, patriotism.

[Condottiere 40K]

If the Americans had wanted an efficient system, they would have set up a single legislative chamber.

[Col. Tartleton]

If the Americans had wanted an efficient system, they would have set up a single legislative chamber.

We'd like a government to govern as little as possible. However the unforeseen consequence is that if one side gets the boulder rolling it's pretty hard to it stop rolling and bring back to position.

The Democrats are pulled Left by special interests and the Republicans get pulled Left to stay competitive. Though the American Left is different from the Left in most places. It's in theory a question about whether the Constitution is always the law or sometimes the law. A Conservative plays by the rules, and a Liberal takes it when it's convenient to their own ideas. Thus liberal in the colloquial means free of principle rather than free in a traditional sense.

[Condottiere 40K]

A lot depends on how political power was built up or the process constructed. England uses the Westminster system, where the CEO is selected by and usually from the faction with the most MPs, and ensures that the policies and legislation that he enacts has the support, supposedly, of most of the Legislature. Switzerland uses Concordance, where all the major parties have a voice in governance and the Presidency is rotated annually among what could be called the cabinet members, whose make up reflects the political representation of their respective parties in the Legislature, and governed under the principle of collegiality, in that after secret discussions, all decisions are supposedly unanimous.