Simple question. In the US, why are we perpetually and hopelessly stuck with a two party system?

[Twilight Hue]

Does anybody ever wonder why? It seems nobody is happy with either side, so you would think a 3rd or even 4th party would take a the lead, but it never ever happens.

Givin the way political parties have come and gone throughout our past history, do you think it's even possible it could happen again, or is it so far gone now that it's not feasible anymore for any new political party to surface enough to be a true contender.

Is our country rigged to be a two party system now for perpetuity?

What do you think?

 

[sun rise]

Lots of people have considered this question, many who are more learned in what perpetuates the two party system. Even in Parliamentary countries such as the UK and Canada, two parties tend to be dominant even when there's a relatively popular third party.

I suspect part of it is financial with big money interests wanting influence and spending money to get it. They don't want to pick long shots, but to have a decent chance of getting the one they back elected.

I also think that part of it is psychological/tribal with us being the "white hats" and them being the "black hats". The complexity of multiple parties disrupts a simplistic good vs bad judgement.

I suspect that if a third party were to gain serious support, one of the existing parties would disappear as the Whig party did many years ago.

 

[Sunstone]

Presidential systems are especially prone to two party dominance. I've heard that almost every presidential system that's ever been tried has quickly turned into a two party system.

Unfortunately, almost every presidential system except for a couple (the US being one of them) has ended up in tyranny within 20 or so years. First it turns into a two party system. Then the parties become deadlocked. Then people turn to a strong man to break the deadlock.

 

[Jumi]

It's kind weird in my opinion to have only two parties. We have quite many parties and although some of them are quite steady sometimes new parties arise and meet with success while others drop out completely. Such a thing happened to liberal party(no direct relation to what US calls "liberal") some time ago. Government in my country is typically formed by multiple parties and gets nicknames like "red earth"(for center party and social democrats), "bourgeois"(for center and right wing parties coalition), "rainbow"(a mix), "blue-red"(right and left wing parties) depending on which group of parties make it up and the opposition is formed by whoever lost the elections.

 

[Revoltingest]

Does anybody ever wonder why? It seems nobody is happy with either side, so you would think a 3rd or even 4th party would take a the lead, but it never ever happens.

Givin the way political parties have come and gone throughout our past history, do you think it's even possible it could happen again, or is it so far gone now that it's not feasible anymore for any new political party to surface enough to be a true contender.

Is our country rigged to be a two party system now for perpetuity?

What do you think?

One factor is congressional representation (The House).
Instead of "at large" elections, it's by district.
This tends to favor The Big Two, because 3rd parties are unlikely to get a majority or even plurality in a district.
So 3rd parties have a tough road just to get a foothold in government.
"At large" elections would let 3rd party voters across the state become a large enuf percentage to elect a representative or two.

 

[Quetzal]

Does anybody ever wonder why? It seems nobody is happy with either side, so you would think a 3rd or even 4th party would take a the lead, but it never ever happens.

Givin the way political parties have come and gone throughout our past history, do you think it's even possible it could happen again, or is it so far gone now that it's not feasible anymore for any new political party to surface enough to be a true contender.

Is our country rigged to be a two party system now for perpetuity?

What do you think?

I think it is and it has everything to do with money/lobbying in politics. See, if you donate to a congressional majority member, that is a good investment! They have some form of clout and pull when it comes to legislature and the national budget. Companies bribe invest in these candidates and in no one else. Why would you donate to a libertarian party? They don't really have much of anything going on. This creates a perpetual cycle of BS that we have been seeing. Want to see this stop? Remove money from politics. But the only people who can do that are the very same people who benefit. That is to say, don't hold your breath.

 

[Jumi]

I don't actually know of any other two-party state apart from the US?

 

[Revoltingest]

I think it is and it has everything to do with money/lobbying in politics. See, if you donate to a congressional majority member, that is a good investment! They have some form of clout and pull when it comes to legislature and the national budget. Companies bribe invest in these candidates and in no one else. Why would you donate to a libertarian party? They don't really have much of anything going on. This creates a perpetual cycle of BS that we have been seeing. Want to see this stop? Remove money from politics. But the only people who can do that are the very same people who benefit. That is to say, don't hold your breath.

Removing money will have unanticipated consequences.
Let's say no candidate could buy ads.
Who would be the gatekeeper for their access to the public?
Government &/or the media.
We all know that news & entertainment media have great sway over how candidates are perceived.
This would give them enormous unbalanced power.

Sure, sure, the ads are utterly worthless at best.
But without money for ads, government would necessarily become more involved in regulating media access.
But are we better off concentrating more power of electing & re-electing government officials in government itself?

It's somewhat analogous to juries.
Jurors are often prejudiced, dumb, & ignorant.
But the jury trial system exists in order to prevent too much government control over us.
(And government has taken steps to curb the right to a jury trial.)

 

[Quetzal]

Removing money will have unanticipated consequences.
Let's say no candidate could buy ads.
Who would be the gatekeeper for their access to the public?
Government &/or the media.
We all know that news & entertainment media have great sway over how candidates are perceived.
This would give them enormous unbalanced power.

Sure, sure, the ads are utterly worthless at best.
But without money for ads, government would necessarily become more involved in regulating media access.
But are we better off concentrating more power of electing & re-electing government officials in government itself?

It's somewhat analogous to juries.
Jurors are often prejudiced, dumb, & ignorant.
But the jury trial system exists in order to prevent too much government control over us.
(And government has taken steps to curb the right to a jury trial.)

These are good points. My primary concern is that CEO's of larger corporations are writing legislature to benefit themselves. This has created this very top heavy economic paradigm we find ourselves in. What, with the upper 1% owning a large portion of the world's wealth and it only getting worse. This is not sustainable, I don't think.

 

[Flankerl]

Why should the two parties running the country change the system so that they can't do that any more?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

perhaps try the German system, where the state funds the election of all candidates equally, and private money can not be used.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Does anybody ever wonder why? It seems nobody is happy with either side, so you would think a 3rd or even 4th party would take a the lead, but it never ever happens.

Givin the way political parties have come and gone throughout our past history, do you think it's even possible it could happen again, or is it so far gone now that it's not feasible anymore for any new political party to surface enough to be a true contender.

I wouldn't say that. There are plenty of examples of countries where multiple parties get seats.

I think where the US is different is in its focus on the presidential race. On that race, sure: nobody but the Republicans or Democrats are likely to win for the foreseeable future. On other races, it's a different story.

Is our country rigged to be a two party system now for perpetuity?

What do you think?

It's not really exclusively a two-party system now. You do get independent candidates elected every now and then.

Third parties in the US will likely have to follow the model elsewhere in the world: start in a limited geographic area. That's how the BQ in Canada and the DUP in the UK are able to get seats: they focus all their energy in a limited number of electoral districts instead of speading it out nationwide so they have no hope of winning any seat.

This approach can be very effective at putting a small party with a small base of support into the position of holding the balance of power in a minority government.

 

[Quetzal]

Why should the two parties running the country change the system so that they can't do that any more?

And there you have it. This is the fundamental problem with our system is that the only people who can stop the abuse are the ones that do it.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

The answer is first-past-the post voting. Very few countries have and it always leads to low turn-outs and limited choice.