• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Is the US a two party state

Nihilianth said:
You people are trying to describe the result that is two primary parties that have a realistic chance of winning presidential elections as a "system," when it isn't a "system." It's just the result of the system that's actually called "first past the post," or more colloquially called "winner take all."
Click to expand...
"You people" meaning, approximately speaking, every English speaker in the world, including the people who do this for a living.

But if a state authoritarian bans all the other parties by law, then it becomes a "system." We have the term "system of laws." A defined manner of voting issued by law or decree is a "system." Hence: "voting system." It is set down by a system of laws.
Click to expand...
The argument here seems to be that a system has to be "set down", ie an intended result. That's surely false, given that we call things that weren't designed at all systems (the respiratory system, for example).

Since political parties are not banned, it isn't a "system," as no laws defines a severe restriction on political parties during the voting or political processes. Two major parties is just the result of the particular system of voting called "First Past the Post."
Click to expand...
Well, no. Two dominant parties is the result of a set of interactions between laws, processes and institutions, not limited to FPTP voting. This is how we can have counties that use preferential ballots that are two-party systems, and countries that use plurality voting and aren't.

And that's what's being referred to with "two-party system".

It would be akin to calling pollution a "system" in the same way that you would call the "internal combustion engine" a "system." Pollution is just pollution. It isn't a "system." It's just simply the result of an actual system working in a negative manner such as an internal combustion engine. An ICE is a system. Pollution is not.
Click to expand...
You're simply confusing the system for the result. "Two-party system" refers to the system (the complex interaction of laws, political processes and institutions) that result in there being two dominant parties.

That's not reducible to FPTP voting.

My contention is to call it what it is. Not what it is not.
Click to expand...
You just went on at length about why we can't call it a two-party system because it doesn't help.

You're now completely abandoning that line of thought. You should probably at least acknowledge that.
 
Last edited:
I Am The Scum said:
I've never even heard of such a thing. History is not my strong suit, so I welcome any examples.

One would think that in any society willing to ban all but two parties, one of those parties would ban their sole competitor at the first opportunity.
Click to expand...
The Democrats did a deal with the Republicans to ensure there could only be two parties.
 
Last edited:
a_unique_person said:
The Democrats did a deal with the Republicans to ensure there could only be two parties.
Click to expand...
If true, the Democrats are NOT holding up their end of the bargain, as they are definitely the party willing to give other parties a chance, as evidenced by all the big cities, as well as three blue(ish) states that have passed ranked-choice voting, and almost all of the states that have signed on for the National Popular Vote Compact are mostly deeply blue states.

0 deep red Republican states have passed such measures, agreed to such measures, or even considering such measures.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Just answer the question, it isnt a difficult one.
Click to expand...
IF you had bothered to even read anything I've written to this point and paid any attention to it, your question would already be answered. I fail to understand what further point you are trying to make here.
 
Nihilianth said:
IF you had bothered to even read anything I've written to this point and paid any attention to it, your question would already be answered. I fail to understand what further point you are trying to make here.
Click to expand...
That you do not understand the terms you're bandying about.

A two party system is not, and has never meant a system in which only two parties exist. It is a system whereby only 2 parties have any meaningful chance to get into power.

The US is such a system. You can throw a tantrum about the 50 minor parties who never get anywhere all you want but the fact is that the only people who get elected are Republicans, Democrats, or very occasionally independents who mostly end up siding with one of the above two.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
A two party system is not, and has never meant a system in which only two parties exist. It is a system whereby only 2 parties have any meaningful chance to get into power.
Click to expand...
I'm going to modify your statement slightly, but I think it's important:

A two party system is not, and has never meant a system in which only two parties exist. It is a system in which, for whatever reason, only 2 parties have any meaningful chance to get into power.

It doesn't matter why only two parties can get into power. This is the reason why I have been saying that "two party system" isn't a system, it is simply a phrase that counts the number of parties that can get into power.
 
arthwollipot said:
A two party system is not, and has never meant a system in which only two parties exist. It is a system in which, for whatever reason, only 2 parties have any meaningful chance to get into power.

It doesn't matter why only two parties can get into power. This is the reason why I have been saying that "two party system" isn't a system, it is simply a phrase that counts the number of parties that can get into power.
Click to expand...
The bolded seems like a contradiction.
 
arthwollipot said:
I'm going to modify your statement slightly, but I think it's important:

A two party system is not, and has never meant a system in which only two parties exist. It is a system in which, for whatever reason, only 2 parties have any meaningful chance to get into power.

It doesn't matter why only two parties can get into power. This is the reason why I have been saying that "two party system" isn't a system, it is simply a phrase that counts the number of parties that can get into power.
Click to expand...
That's been my point all along, and expanded upon your clearer argument in my posts #95, 99, and 100.

The system is the body of laws that establishes the manner and processes of how we vote.

Hence:

"Fist Past the Post" or "winner-take all" is the system.

Having only two major parties that win most elections is the result

It would be like calling CO2 as "system" It isn't a "system' at all. It's singular (or plural) standalone noun.

Respiration is a system that results in the release of CO2 by living, oxygen-breathing organisms through a natural process. To interchange "CO2" and "respiration" with eachother is incorrect. You don't call respiration a "CO2 system."

And finally, even though some people MAY call it a "two-party system," doesn't mean that's what it is; any more than how far too many people misuse the term "theory" to mean "just a guess." Or that North Korea is either "democratic" or is a "republic."

And to answer, once again, MarkCorrigan's question about whether North Korea has a single party or not (which is irrelevant), its a single party. As I've stated before, it is a "One-Party SYSTEM," because it is decreed by law that only a single party shall exist, and that single party chooses who it's leader will be through whatever process they have established. It seems to be a dynastic process of leadership choice, as opposed to any sort of "democratic voting process."

The United States has no such body of law declaring only two major parties to exist and how those two parties choose our president. Therefore, it is neither "two-party," nor a "system." Especially considering that Independents DO have enough power to sway the Congress in decision-making in one direction or the other more often than not and can also affect the outcome of the presidential election.
 
arthwollipot said:
Depending on your definition of "system". In the first, it means "general pattern of things". In the second it means "formal set of rules of operation". English is like that sometimes.
Click to expand...
If it meets at least one of the definitions of system, it seems fair to call it a system, and any objection to calling it a system thereafter has to be understood as somewhat obtuse.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom