You're viewing a single thread.
As a European I always wonder why Americans don't create an alternative party to the Democrats, after all it is the party that in 2016 cheated in the primaries so that Hillary would win and still lost to an idiot. If you create a real left-wing party you can seriously propose things like socialized healthcare just as the right is not shy about proposing crazy things like banning abortion.
The only difference is that they have been successful in colonizing the Republican Party and the Democratic Party is simply an outdated instrument that no longer represents its own bases.
Americans have tried to create third parties before, but due to the electoral college and the first past the post voting system, new parties are destined to fail and not win any votes. So the current two party system is the natural state of America.
The only way to change this is to get rid of the electoral college and the FPTP system, like that's ever going to happen.
You can get a successful new party but only if one of the two big ones completely self-destructs and creates a power vacuum. And even then the new party will probably be a faction of the defunct one. There definitely won't be a three-party constellation for more than a brief period.
completely self-destructs
Well the GOP is on its way, and if they reform into a moderately sensible party, the dems will have to move left to actually differentiate themselves.
I'm dreaming though.
The GOP is well on the way to creating a minority rule one party state.
Sure, but they're like a car trying to make it to the finish line with 2 flats and a broken axle. They lost a lot of support when they killed roe and are losing people on the trans culture war, if only because it's been the only thing they've talked about for the past several years.
Granted, a lot of dems are working hard to be unelectable, so we'll have to see if the GOP can establish a fascist theocracy before they fall apart. It's a toss up currently.
Well, the issue of the electoral college is something that I don't fully understand, in the end from Europe I follow American politics relatively, but the English also have the first past the post system and they have more than one party.
Perhaps it would be necessary to start setting it up from more local elections or to the Congress/Senate, where a small but more mobilized mass could be relevant. With a relevant percentage representation in the chambers and/or state positions it could stop being crazy.
I don't know, it's an outside opinion, maybe it's impossible, but if it is then American democracy is not only dysfunctional, it wouldn't be a democracy at all, It would be a plutocracy with all the letters
I think it could work if the third party sets reasonable goals and steps to achieve a difference in America.
I like the idea of focusing on local elections, it could start out as a network of local communities that grows and grows, and when it becomes big enough for a national conversation, if it does, then we start on the federal politics.
We might find its not even necessary to continue on to federal government, as enough small communities change and it becomes the norm, the federal government will reflect that.
The electoral college is mainly for the president. Each state is "worth" x number of electoral votes (actual people who do the real voting, they just are supposed to follow the publics vote.) so running for president becomes a game of "how many points can I gather using various states to win" instead of "how can I appeal to as many people as possible to win." It's a clusterfuck and it leaves candidates ignoring states they think aren't worth spending money and time in.
Well, if that only applies at the presidential level, a party can be created that competes at the legislative and state level. When it is established with enough power at that level, running at the presidential level might not be such a risky game.
I dont think FPTP is an issue, here in my country, despite FPTP we have seen many national parties rise, collapse since independence, regional parties' influence in national politics also increased exponentially in recent elections. I know FPTP is kind of rotten but dont think thats stopping smaller parties to rise.
First Past the Post doesn't guarantee complete nationwide hegemony of two parties. There can be areas where the vote is between a mainstream party and a regional party, because the other mainstream party doesn't show up. This happens in the UK all the time.
They don't take a lot, but those seats are enough that the big parties often have to work with them to cobble together a majority.
Nor is First Past the Post the only factor. There's plenty of southern states that have runoff voting. Their last century of state level offices are just as filled with Democrats and Republicans as anywhere else.
The US is unique in that not only are their only two real parties, but those two parties dominate at every level of government.
Canada also has a FPTP system and we have like 5 federal parties. But it's also a Westminster parliamentary system that allows temporary alliances, minority governments, support and supply agreements and other power-sharing arrangements.
The American system is unique in their imperial presidency and aristocratic Senate and supreme Court, where so much power is concentrated in so few people for such a long time that every election becomes a high stakes cosmic event.
Canada also has a FPTP system and we have like 5 federal parties.
Canadians were promised electoral reform recently, what happened?
Politicians didn't keep their promises after being elected.
As a European I always wonder why Americans don’t create an alternative party to the Democrats
A third party has no chance in a first past the post system. If you create an alternative party to the Democrats, you're just making sure the Republicans win every election.
The British have a first past the post system and more than two parties, something else is wrong in that equation
USA doesn’t have a parliamentary system.
But you have a parliament (congress and senate), right? Why isn't there a third party in these chambers?
No, the executive is compartmentalized and voted for separately, so there's no dissolution of parliament, negotiations over forming a government, etc. Seems like a small difference, but structurally it's a large and impactful distinction.
I know and understand the difference between parliamentarism and presidentialism, but I am not talking about the election of presidents exclusively, I am talking about the political system of the country in general. If 20~30% of the chambers are in the hands of a third party, the country becomes more plural and public debates better represent opinions and I don't understand why that is not possible.
I understand, but how is it viable, from the standpoint of the opposition, to be anything other than a unified party in opposition if there's no chance to bargain for a position in a coalition government, to form a coalition to win an election to make a new government, etc? That doesn't make any sense, why would anyone split like that?
Yes, after all the answers I think I am beginning to see the problem, it is not the electoral system but your vision of it. That is why time and time again the answers are about the position of president and not about the system as a whole. You don't care, you don't understand that the present is the most powerful individual person, but the presidency is not the most powerful institution, the Congress and the Senate have much more power, being powerful there is much more important than putting a person in office. Not to mention the number of laws, measures and issues that do not even reach the federal level.
Exactly. It's very much structural. And fixable, but we won't fix it :/
Americans are taught from elementary school that voting third party is basically a sin, its repeated on all forms of media and treated as fact for every single election regardless of the situation. When people say things like 'America is the most propagandized country in the world' this is part of what they're referring to.
Americans somehow believe they're just too different from all those countries that made things like public transport, healthcare, and more than two political parties work. They believe those things simply wont work here even if they work elsewhere.
I don't know, I don't deny what you say, but as I was answering to another, then the United States is not a democracy anymore, it is a plutocracy where a few elites can decide policies, but the population lacks the capacity to change the trends even if there is a broad consensus for it.
this is sad
You are correct sir.
I've noticed that the loudest the politicians in a country rant about how great a Democracy that country has, the less of a Democracy it is.
In Europe, for example, you get British Politicians going on an one about how the country has the "Oldest Democracy in The World" (this in a country with a King who a few years ago - well, his mother - was found to actually have some power over what legislation gets passed, an unlected second chamber with members who inherit their seat from their parents and First Past The Post for Parliament) all the while in The Netherlands (who, IMHO, have probably the most Democratic system in the World, including Proportional Vote, though with a powerless King) politians pretty much never rant about the quality of their Democracy.
At least in the West, the most loud and relentless proclaimers of how great their Democracy is by a large margin are American politicians.
As an American, I would also say the most loud and relentless proclaimers about our democracy are also our right wing voters. Nationalism is a hell of a drug. I wouldn't necessarily say it's only our politicians. I went to school with people who unironically would start USA chants.
Though I'm not saying we don't have the same thing on the left. I think more of America's left recognizes how shitty our county actually is for regular people.
I know I rambled a bit there... Anyway, I agree with your point entirely about the loudest they rant about democracy, the less there actually is.
There are a few independents, most notably Bernie Sanders.
That’s just it, the system was created as a two-party system, and two-party is a hugely beneficial to the champions of that same system who make the laws, the same people who would have to make the law to change the system to make it harder for themselves to “win” but better for us.
You would have to have people in charge who were willing to give up their power to make things better for the people as a whole, and sadly there’s basically nobody left who gives a shit about the population as a whole. They’re all selfish as shit. About half are currently more evil, but they’re all out of touch and working for nobody but themselves and their wealthy benefactors.
It was not created as a 2-party system, there have been several other successful political parties in US history. We've had US presidents elected from 3 other parties plus an Independent. Federalists, Whigs, and "Democratic-Republicans" are the 3 other parties who had Presidents in the WH.
Maine and Alaska changed their voting systems. Why not your state?
When was the last time the Prime Minister of the UK was not a Tory or from Labor?
In 2010 they had a coalition government made up of Torys and Liberals, in Great Britain the executive power is not just the Prime Minister, it is the entire Council of Ministers and it was not made up only of Torys. Obviously a coalition government is not possible in the American system, but a third party being influential in the cameras is and I still don't see because it is impossible
The American voting system is not Proportional Vote and instead is massivelly Mathematically rigged with (for Congress) huge single representative electoral circles which in some cases have borders designed exactly to make it near impossible to defeat incumbents (aka Gerrymandering), with (for the Senate) even larger electoral circles (literally, each state) with 2 representatives, and something somewhat similar for Presidential elections (though worse since ultimatelly it all adds up to a single representative electoral circle with 300 million voters for a position with lots of power, unlike most European countries - with some notable exceptions like France - which either don't have a President or have one which is mainly symbolic and has little power).
Further, the very nature of the system will, beyond the Mathematical rigging, push the people who would otherwise go for a 3rd party to instead go for the "useful vote" (i.e. chose an electable candidate instead of the one they want) - it's not by chance that the heaviest argument of the Biden campaign was "vote Biden to defeat Trump".
Since new parties take various electoral cycles to grow, it's pretty impossible for them to do so because it's Mathematically near impossible for them to even establish a foothold that shows its earlier supporters they do have a chance to one day influence what laws are made in the US and how the country is ruled, so new parties invariable lose steam after the first or second election they go through.
You can see something similar to this in the UK, were for example the Green Party gets 1 million votes out of 40 million (2.5% of votes) but only 1 member of parliament out of 300 (0.33%), and remember this is with lots of people chosing electable candidates from other parties, so the Green Party natural vote would likely be larger in a different system
This stands in marked contrast with, for example, The Netherlands, were vote is Proportional and there are 15 parties in their Parliament (Tweede Kamer).
Why? The same reason the 1/3 burger flopped. Majority of mericans are dumb af. Splitting off from the D would give the R a sure win. That's the only reason they aren't doing it.
The same reason the 1/3 burger flopped.
I think that was just A&W flopping. Braums did just fine with 1/3rd lb burgers. And in the south no less.
Hardees / Carl's Jr have made many a dollar selling their 1/3 lb burgers for many years as well.
The 1/3 was a ceo's excuse for failure that gets parroted because it feels good to talk down to others.
Creating a third party is self-sabotage. Here's a short CGP Grey video on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
As a European I always wonder why Americans don’t create an alternative party to the Democrats
The average American is too stupid to handle more than 2 options. American's like everything easy and straightforward. Black and white. Good and evil. They have a very simplistic world view.
Or maybe we are stuck with the two parties we have.
For a third party to appear, one of the current ones has to fracture. Neither party is willing to do that because fracturing your own party guarantees the other party wins due to FPTP.
Right now especially, noone trusts the republicans to run the country while the democrats re-sort themselves into their new parties.
Even then, it might be those two Democrat parties splitting their own vote for many elections to come, essentially conceding the country for a decade or more.
If the parties we had now were more moderate and closer together on everyday issues, it wouldnt feel like picking between shit and poop, it would feel like choosing between vanilla and chocolate ice cream, which both are valid and good and have their own merits.
Americans aren't stupid, we are frustrated, and in some states there is still a strong pressure from religion, school, and government that causes people to learn the wrong ideals, and in some cases complete falsehoods. My favorite is the states that contradict themselves or avoid logic at all turns.
We recently had a state pass a law including the ten commandments in every classroom in the state, but the approved list they are putting up is ELEVEN items long.
I was probably all over the place in this reply but I hope I made some sense towards your post.
Oh fuck off, the reason is we have FPTP elections and there's too much hanging on an election to justify fracturing the country for four years while we establish a viable 3rd party.
I don't know, I have never lived in the United States, but I would like to think that there are still enough intelligent people for a third party to position itself as a real alternative and end up completely replacing the Democratic Party, which will leave two parties again, now that I think it
Wall yourself through the process of creating this third party. Let's say its this leading edge european-style-leftist party that cares about people, for real this time.
This party starts growing slowly, but where do the people come from? Maybe some people who avoided politics altogether until this new party came along, but most people will likely come from the Democratic party.
So the party is building and the democrat party is shrinking, while the republican party stays the same. They may even see some growth from the "fracturing" of the Democrat party. They start winning more and more elections as instead of a race coming out 46% to 44%, it comes out 46% to 36% to 10%.
That ratio keeps building in favor of the new leftist party, but we lose seats and elections every cycle. And then eventually (maybe stupidly hopeful?) The new left party completely takes over the democrat party which ceases to exist.
Now we are back at a two party system, but have lost the country for maybe 5, 10, 20+ years? You could argue this is a better idea than what we currently do, which is try to change the party you are part of slowly over time with voting and campaigning, but I personally wouldnt say that myself.
Well, I don't know, like I said before I'm not American and I don't know all the ins and outs of the American electoral system, but if this is really impossible, I'll just stop thinking of the United States as a democracy in any way. Changing the democrats party from within has proven impossible since Hillary's rigged election in 2016, moving her policies to the left runs into a constant wall of "this is how we will lose the center", well, I don't know, I just think the system is so broken that either something different is done or it's not going to be fixed
Well I don't expect it to happen suddenly jut corporate america has already started its decline, and with that its power will decline as well.
That's more of a faith thing I suppose, I don't have much evidence to back it up with besides anecdotes about my own community.