Split Thread Is the US a two party state

[steenkh]

Theres literally no such thing as a "two party system," and I like how you took a few words out of that entire post, lol. You either have a single-party system, such as a fascist or communist nation often are, or you havea multiparty system like the US, UK, Germany, etc all have.

If you had functioning multi-party system, you wouldn't have a Republican Party that has members that span from the centre to the far-right, and a Democratic Party that spans the centre to the far left. On paper you can have more than one party, but the election system favours the two parties to the de facto exclusion of everybody else.

Split from Here

Posted By: jimbob

 

[Mojo]

If you had functioning multi-party system, you wouldn't have a Republican Party that has members that span from the centre to the far-right, and a Democratic Party that spans the centre to the far left.

"The Americans, like us, have a two-party system. They have the Republican party, which is a bit like our Conservative party, and they have the Democratic party, which is a bit like our Conservative party."

 

[Nihilianth]

Gemini's and your conclusion is wrong. Arrow's Impossibility Theorem is only valid for ranked-voting systems.

The U.S. two-party system is bad because like in all countries, voters tend to distribute themselves equally around the middle, and when you only have two parties represented, the winning party will have only a tiny majority of the voters behind it (well, in the US system a party can even win without a majority of the voters behind it). This means that it is possible for the election result to dramatically swing from one election to another even though only few voters change their mind. I say "dramatically" because the two parties have to have very different policies in order to encompass their own half of the voting population, and the result is political instability.

If there were multiple parties, a single party will seldomly be able to get a majority, and parties need to cooperate in order to govern, and this will tend to increase stability. Of course, multiple parties do not guarantee stability, and parties may form blocks that can work like two-party systems.

Again, there is no such thing as a "two party system." That's not a thing. It;s a "first past the post" system or "winner-take-all" in layman's term.

The United States definitely has more than 2 parties. As a matter of fact, there's typically four parties, 2 major and 2 minor represented during the presidential elections, and sometimes multiple super-minor parties with the word "independent" in them.

Change the voting system from a first-past-the-post, even while still keeping the outdated electoral college, and replace it with ranked-choice, and you'll have a Green, Constitutional, or one of the "Independent" parties with a growing chance at competing on the national stage.

As a matter of fact, it's up to each state to institute a ranked-choice ballot if they really want. Most of the big cities already do it for local elections. And it's becoming more popular.

Furthermore, we may very well see the effective end of the electoral college system within our lifetime, if another state or 2 accepts the Interstate Compact agreement.

 

[steenkh]

Again, there is no such thing as a "two party system." That's not a thing. It;s a "first past the post" system or "winner-take-all" in layman's term.

You can claim all you like that the US is a multi-party system, but everybody can see that that is not how it works.

 

[ZiprHead]

You can claim all you like that the US is a multi-party system, but everybody can see that that is not how it works.

Calling it a "system" implies it's a planned result of conscious decisions. It's not.

It's the result of a FPTP electoral method. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law

 

[Nihilianth]

You can claim all you like that the US is a multi-party system, but everybody can see that that is not how it works.

It very literally, factually, is. There are quite literally at least 50 different political parties in the United States. And a very simple Google search will reveal that to be the case. I very literally named a handful of them. Two minor parties always get about a half a percentage of the vote in presidential elections, with the Libertarian Party that has 700,000 registered voters, and 650,000 votes at the last presidential election. The Green Party with 261,000 registered voters, and 813,000 votes in the last presidential election. The Constitution Party came in 3rd place of the minors, with 155,000 registered, and 54,000 voters.

These are enough voters for these parties to prevent either of the major candidates from obtaining 50% of the vote. It would mathematically be impossible for one candidate to have 47%, and the other to have 46% if other parties and their candidates were not present.

Again, it is just a simple matter of states passing a ranked-choice ballot. A lot of major cities have it, such as NYC, and LA (that amounts to about 20 million in population right there alone!) And with the entire states of Maine, Alaska, and Hawaii for state-wide elections.

The three minor parties I mention in this post are pretty healthy. Especially the Libertarian and Green Parties. They've gained a lot of new traction, since people in three entire states and many large cities can actually now vote for them in local and state elections without detracting from "their side" in those elections. In the three states mentioned; Maine, Alaska, and Hawaii, they can vote like that in state-wide elections. This gives a crap load of people.... literally millions of voters....more incentive to vote for one of the minor party candidates in presidential elections.

The next step is for states to start instituting the rank-choice for presidential ballots. And it probably is not too far off, as younger progressives like Mamdani in NYC, are moving up the ranks of the Democratic Party. If Mamdani can become governor of NY in the 2030s, and if NYC voters heavily vote in favor of progressive candidates to their state chamber, then there's a really good chance that NY could join Maine, Alaska, and Hawaii to pass ranked-choice for state-wide elections and possibly move onto doing so for presidential ballots.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Wrong thread, guys

 

[wareyin]

In the most recent presidential election, neither the Republican nor the Democratic candidate got 50% of the vote. That does not change the fact that no party other than Republican or Democratic will control the Presidency, The House, or the Senate. We have a 2 party system because "parties" that can't get more than 1% of the vote are not going to affect anything.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

You can claim all you like that the US is a multi-party system, but everybody can see that that is not how it works.

This. russia, too, has a multitude of parties other than the one that keeps winning elections. We still refer to it as a one-party system.

The US has two parties with any chance of winning elections, with all the others being irrelevant. That's what we mean by it being a two-party system, as opposed to the ones where you have a multitude of parties because parties gain, for example, seats in parliament based on how many votes they receive, so there's a reason to vote for smaller parties.

 

[arthwollipot]

It very literally, factually, is. There are quite literally at least 50 different political parties in the United States.

If it technically is a multi-party state, it functionally has only two parties. When was the last time anybody but a Republican, Democrat, or the occasional Independent (which is not a party) held a seat in either the Senate or the House?

 

[Opcode]

Gemini's and your conclusion is wrong. Arrow's Impossibility Theorem is only valid for ranked-voting systems.

The U.S. two-party system is bad because like in all countries, voters tend to distribute themselves equally around the middle, and when you only have two parties represented, the winning party will have only a tiny majority of the voters behind it (well, in the US system a party can even win without a majority of the voters behind it). This means that it is possible for the election result to dramatically swing from one election to another even though only few voters change their mind. I say "dramatically" because the two parties have to have very different policies in order to encompass their own half of the voting population, and the result is political instability.

If there were multiple parties, a single party will seldomly be able to get a majority, and parties need to cooperate in order to govern, and this will tend to increase stability. Of course, multiple parties do not guarantee stability, and parties may form blocks that can work like two-party systems.

The issue isn't the number of parties. In fact, the US has more than two parties. The issue is the type of voting system used. We could get a government that more closely reflects the diversity of the population if we allowed proportionate representation, instead of winner-takes-all. In my opinion, that would lead to a deadlocked, ineffectual, bureaucratic government. Incidentally, it's also exactly what led to Hitler's rise to power by providing him first with a seat and then with a crisis caused by the constant gridlock.

 

[mumblethrax]

Calling it a "system" implies it's a planned result of conscious decisions. It's not.

It kind of is. The unintended consequence can become intended, once you have entrenched parties who benefit from the arrangement. The tendency towards a two-party system produced by FPTP voting is exacerbated by other, sometimes self-dealing developments that limit competitive elections. In the US that'll be things like onerous ballot access laws, the inability to form coalition governments (because forming a government isn't a thing at all), and the strong office of the presidency (which limits the potential for regional parties to develop).

This is evident in the fact that other countries with FPTP voting are not as completely dominated by two parties as the US is. In the UK, you have Labour, the Tories, Lib Dems, and SNP winning at least a few seats in every election. In Canada, it's Liberals, Conservatives, the Bloc Québécois, and (despite their recent collapse) the NDP. The UK has more minor parties represented in the lower house than Australia does, despite Australia using preferential voting.

The US hasn't elected a third party candidate to Congress in the post-war era, although there have been a few independents (almost always in the Senate, for whatever reason, and most of those being Senators who were originally elected on a major party ticket).

There's more than just FPTP at work here, and it's fair to call the US a two-party system as a result (I wouldn't call the UK one, at least not in the same sense).

 

[steenkh]

The issue isn't the number of parties. In fact, the US has more than two parties. The issue is the type of voting system used. We could get a government that more closely reflects the diversity of the population if we allowed proportionate representation, instead of winner-takes-all. In my opinion, that would lead to a deadlocked, ineffectual, bureaucratic government. Incidentally, it's also exactly what led to Hitler's rise to power by providing him first with a seat and then with a crisis caused by the constant gridlock.

So instead of a proportional system that more accurately reflects the population, but did give rise to fascism, you prefer a system that … um … is currently giving rise to fascism at approximately the same speed?

 

[carlosy]

More like a two tribes state.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Technically no, functionally yes.

 

[Nihilianth]

If it technically is a multi-party state, it functionally has only two parties. When was the last time anybody but a Republican, Democrat, or the occasional Independent (which is not a party) held a seat in either the Senate or the House?

If it technically is a multi-party state, it functionally has only two parties. When was the last time anybody but a Republican, Democrat, or the occasional Independent (which is not a party) held a seat in either the Senate or the House?

I see that neither of you have actually addressed my post in its entirety. Regardless, that doesn't change the facts. You can't have 50 of something sitting right in front of you, and just simply declare there are only 2. That's just plain delusional.

 

[Nihilianth]

In the most recent presidential election, neither the Republican nor the Democratic candidate got 50% of the vote. That does not change the fact that no party other than Republican or Democratic will control the Presidency, The House, or the Senate. We have a 2 party system because "parties" that can't get more than 1% of the vote are not going to affect anything.

Bah! I STILL dont know how to use the multiquote feature.... This was supposed to be combined with the post above.

 

[wareyin]

I see that neither of you have actually addressed my post in its entirety. Regardless, that doesn't change the facts. You can't have 50 of something sitting right in front of you, and just simply declare there are only 2. That's just plain delusional.

No, I think it is delusional to believe that 50 'parties' holding absolutely zero government positions at any level (city, state, or federal) are viable or affect American politics.

You're looking at a table with only two entrées and counting the ants on the ground as alternative dining choices.

 

[Nihilianth]

No, I think it is delusional to believe that 50 'parties' holding absolutely zero government positions at any level (city, state, or federal) are viable or affect American politics.

You're looking at a table with only two entrées and counting the ants on the ground as alternative dining choices.

You still haven't even addressed my full argument. I am not going to go about repeating myself.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

You can't have 50 of something sitting right in front of you, and just simply declare there are only 2. That's just plain delusional.

You're missing the point. The whole point of having different terms is to be able to differentiate between things. It's useful to have a term for a country where only two parties have a chance of winnning. We call that a two-party system. You could quibble and say that actually there's far more parties in both a one- and two-party country (like russia and the USA, respectively), but then the whole point of having the terms in the first place disappears.

In the end, what matters is the purpose and common usage of terms, not how technically correct they are. It's like how we can refer to wind turbines as windmills even though they don't mill anything --English is full of words that aren't technically correct or that have meanings that have changed over time to mean something completely different. Like 'to decimate': Some people bristle over using that word to mean anything else than the Roman practice of killing every 10th person in a Roman legion, but whether they like it or not, the meaning of words will always be changing.