What's with this 2 party system?

[hgc]

We often hear political discussion referring to the problem of our 2 party system of politics, and how those 2 parties prevent entry of other parties into the political process.

Other democracies tend to have more than 2 parties representing the voters in their legislative bodies, and in some cases, in rotating (irregularly) control of the bureaucracy (executive branch). Since it's less likely that when more than 2 parties are involved than any one will have a simple majority in the legislature, coalitions are formed among parties with somewhat overlapping interests. Why not here?

I've heard it said that our Republican and Democratic parties can be looked at as coalitions of constituencies with somewhat overlapping interests. For instance, religious conservatives and economic conservatives shouldn't by definition have overlapping interests, but enough of them are the same people, that those 2 constituencies tend to concentrate in the Republican party. Other examples have constituencies with competing interests together in the same party, such as labor and environmentalists in the Democratic party. They bind together to concentrate their power, and hence to serve their constituencies in at least a compromise fasion.

What do you think?

[daenku32]

About as numerous times the issue of some states overpowering others has come up. So it's not about having a lot of ideas but to have a lot of fragmentation of power. All the ideas of a area are consolidated to two alternatives, the minumum required to avoid dictatorship, which unfortunately causes the two parties to truly engage in only a few issues of true public interest at a time.

And because presidential elections are driven by Electoral College and no instant runoff elections, the desire to vote for someone who you prefer a bit more than one of the two party canditates, is only one less vote for the one closer to you giving advantage to the one farther from you.

Our system just doesn't support multitude of ideas.

[hgc]

Originally posted by daenku32
About as numerous times the issue of some states overpowering others has come up. So it's not about having a lot of ideas but to have a lot of fragmentation of power. All the ideas of a area are consolidated to two alternatives, the minumum required to avoid dictatorship, which unfortunately causes the two parties to truly engage in only a few issues of true public interest at a time.

And because presidential elections are driven by Electoral College and no instant runoff elections, the desire to vote for someone who you prefer a bit more than one of the two party canditates, is only one less vote for the one closer to you giving advantage to the farther from you.

Our system just doesn't support multitude of ideas. It's easy to see this operating at the Presidential election level, but what about all other levels of government, where a vote is a vote?

Why don't the other parties, and there are many, make any headway at the local and state level? Is it because of the lack of prestige of competitiveness at the very top? Is it because the ruling coalitions (Reps and Dems) co-opt all the issues driving a majority of the voters? That's what I'm trying to figure out.

[Otther]

They bind together to concentrate their power, and hence to serve their constituencies in at least a compromise fasion.

If there is no controling majority in a 3(+) party state, don't the parties have to band together to take control? How isn't that comprimise...

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by hgc
It's easy to see this operating at the Presidential election level, but what about all other levels of government, where a vote is a vote?

Why don't the other parties, and there are many, make any headway at the local and state level? Is it because of the lack of prestige of competitiveness at the very top? Is it because the ruling coalitions (Reps and Dems) co-opt all the issues driving a majority of the voters? That's what I'm trying to figure out.

I'd say it's because too many people are afraid of "wasting their vote". If we had IRV (Instant Runoff Voting) or something similar, third parties almost certainly would gain some power.

Personally, I'm registered Green, but I will vote Democrat sometimes just to try to keep a Republican out of office.

[kittynh]

Well, and we have more than the two party system for checks and balances. We have the Judicial System, which serves a very important purpose.

Plus, money, even a local election takes money. The major parties have the greatest share.

[Tmy]

The 2 parties have manipulated the system in order to ensure their power is perpetual. For example:

Primaries: They use govt money to have these semi elections in order to focus on one candidate to consolidate power. In many places you have to be registered in the party in order to vote in an primary that is paid for by taxpayers! If I like Joe and Joe loses the primary, I can still vote for him for prez. Primaries are used to bump people off the ballot.

Party Designation on the ballots: basically its free advertising on a govt form. I think this should be abolished. Why not put a persons reliogion on the ballot too?? The point of this is so party memebers can elect based on party affiliation. Vote for the "D".
This is ubsurd. I live in a highly democratic area. In a local election the longtime incumbant county register had been doing an execellent job. He lost the election. Why? Cause someone was smart enuff to run against him as a democrat, so people voted for the "D".

Party Line voting; Our govts run much like street gangs. They might as well be the Crips and the Bloods. Elected leaders are told who and what to vote for. Even if its not best your your consituants or against your judgement, you do as your told. God help you if you buck the party line.

If your not a part of the gang.......err party, good luck in getting pork or coveted committee seats.

Redistricting: Ususally done by lawmakers who purposly and openly draw the lines in ensure victory for incumbant/party members.


The 2 party system makes me ill soemtimes. Its a smack in the face of democracy.

[daenku32]

I think the reason is also tiny districts. Because there are so many of them, each district can only have few or just one representatives. I'm sure this made sense before electronic media because few people could have afforded to campaing in larger areas and because organizing a large committee with numerous ballot counters was difficult. Because only one representative can come from a district, the parties must consolidate to two big opposing ones, and other parties disappear.

The people in the Federal Government are not a representation of the multitude of people of United States, but of the single majority opinion within the respective district. So in essence all branches of the federal government are comprised of the consensus of districtual majority opinions. And not from the consensus of ALL american opinions.

So in essence, 100% of Congress represents only ~ 50% of America.

Why does this matter on the local level? People don't usually start studying new parties when they are electing for local officials. They stay with the same party as they did in Federal Elections. Staying with that familiar party (even if from a pool of only two), is preferred to taking chance with a strange new 3rd party.

My Solution: Expand districts.

[Tmy]

Almost forgot,

ELECTION RULES: How many times are 3rd party candiates frozen out of debates and fed campain monies??? The hurdles to the money and exposure are purposly set so high that only Dems and Repubs have any chance of qualifying.

[Chaos]

I´m not exactly sure how the Congress is elected in the US, so I´ll focus on how the parliament is elected in Germany; this might shed some light on how a multi-party system works vs. a 2-party-system.

The "Bundesrat" (about the same as the senate) is not directly elected. The ruling party or coalition of each state (we have 13 area states and 3 city states) choses whom to send and how to vote; each state has between 3 and, I guess, 10 or so votes.

The "Bundestag" (more similar to the House of Representatives) is directly elected. Votes are counted nation-wide, and basically, the seats are distributed proportionally - with parties below 5% of eligible votes getting no seats. However, there is also a direct vote, and each party ultimately gets either the number of seats they won via direct vote, or the number they got via total votes, whatever is bigger.

Right now, the Social Democrats and Conservatives each got about 38% of the votes, the Greens have 8%, the Liberals 7%, and the Socialists have two direct votes (they scores 4-point-something percent in the election). We´ve had a Social Democrat / Green coalition since 1998; before that, it was mostly a Conservative/Liberal coalition.

I´ll have to remark, however, that the minor partners of coalitions usually end up "selling their soul" to get a share of the power.

[Segnosaur]

Although multi-party political systems often have many advantages over two-party systems (like the ability for voters to select politicians that are 'closer' to their own beliefs), keep in mind that there are often disadvantages too...

- Depending on the political system, parties can sometimes take power with less than 50% of the vote. Here in Canada, we had about 5 main parties trying to get elected. The ruling liberal party got into power with only 40% of the vote (meaning 60% of the people did not want them elected).

- In some countries (I think France is this way), if there is no clear-cut majority, a run-off election is held. This kind of brings you back to the 2-party model (which you were complaining about); however, it allows various types of 'back door' negotiations

- Many of the extra parties are either one-issue parties, fringe parties, or jokes. In Canada, we used to have a 'joke' party called the Rhinoserous party. (They wanted to pay off the national debt using a credit card). Now, during political debates, many people actually care about the issues; having 'joke' candidates takes away time that can be better used by 'serious' candidates.

- In the case that no party has a majority, sometimes 'coalitons' can form; The problem is that quite often, parties with a very small minority can sometimes obtain much more influence than a party of their size deserves. (For example, how would Americans feel if the only way Bush could have obtained power would be to form a coalition with a political party even more religious than he was?)

I'm not saying the 2 party system is better (or worse) than a multi-party system. I'm just saying there are no clear-cut answers.

[daenku32]

Maybe there should be no such thing as 'Ruling Party'.

I'm not familiar with the Canadian parliament. How is the liberal party there the 'ruling party', if they did not receive majority?

[hgc]

Originally posted by daenku32
Maybe there should be no such thing as 'Ruling Party'.

I'm not familiar with the Canadian parliament. How is the liberal party there the 'ruling party', if they did not receive majority? No way around it. In order for any large organization, like a country for instance, to function, someone has to be at the top of the heap making decisions.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by daenku32
Maybe there should be no such thing as 'Ruling Party'.

I'm not familiar with the Canadian parliament. How is the liberal party there the 'ruling party', if they did not receive majority?

The Canadian parliment is based on the British model...

We have approximately 300 'ridings', each with a population of about 100,000 each. In each 'riding', the MP (Member of Parliment) is chosen as the person with the most votes in the riding. Sometimes that's a majority, sometimes its not... For example, an MP may elected with 40% of the vote, if the other parties may get 35% and 25% in one riding.

Its possible for one party to get a very large percentage of the vote, but end up with very few seats in Parliment because their support is 'spread out' among all possible ridings, while another party ends up with more seats simply because their support is 'concentrated' in a few ridings (even if they get no support anywhere else). This happened in Canada back in the early 90s, when the Progressive Conservative party got something like 10% of the votes across the country, but ended up with only 2 seats (if it was done proportionally it should get 30), while the Parti Quebecois (who didn't even run candididates in over 200 seats) got about the same total number of votes, but because their support was concentrated ended up with something like 40 seats in our Parliment.

Our Prime Minister is simply the person in control of the party with the most seats in Parliment. Or, if a coalition is formed, they may be from the second biggest party, as long as they have enough support. (Well, actually technially the Governor general, our representative of the British Queen, "asks" the person to form the government, but its all very symbolic.)

The reason why the Liberals managed to get into power is a combination of our "first past the post" system (where each MP is selected in a riding, even if they don't have a majority), and the fact that they had a high concentration of support in the east (with very little in the west), while some (but not all) of the other parties had their support spread out among many regions.

[Shane Costello]

Don't make the mistake of presuming a proliferation of political parties will lead to a corresponding diversification of political idealogies and discourse. The experience of Ireland has been that when coalition governments become the norm, differences between parties decrease for the simple reason that cross party cooperation increases. Politicians are primarily interested in the procurement and retention of power, rather than the furtherance of political ideaology, so principle takes a back seat to political expedience.

[American]

Because Dumb and Dumber are both better choices than I'm With Dumb and Dumber.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by hgc

What do you think?

I suggest a one party system. Pledge allegience to the party! It works well in Mexico.

[DanishDynamite]

I've always wondered about the two-party system in the US. I'm told that there are apparently quite a number of barriers which prevent new parties making much headway today, but what is the historical reason for this very limiting setup of just two parties? Surely there were more than two parties when the very first elections were held?

[daenku32]

Well, I grew up in Finland, and do prefer their model of electing the Federal level of government;
Executive branch (President) is voted with popular vote, with run-off in no canditate gets over 50% on first run.
Legistlative branch (Parliament) has 200 members voted on popular vote, with the country divided to only 15 districts, each electing between 1 to 32 representatives. This means while the major parties can get most of the seats, smaller parties STILL have a chance of getting their voices heard on the federal level because ALL available seats can not possibly be taken by the major parties (with the exception of one or two VERY low population districts).

http://virtual.finland.fi/elections/electionsystem.html

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Danish Dynamite:
Surely there were more than two parties when the very first elections were held?

Did the concept of political parties even exist back then?