Is the RNC and DNC monopolies?
Is the RNC and DNC monopolies?
I thought about this in response to a comment someone made and postured a position in which the RNC and DNC are really just two monopoly companies at this point (link). I know there's protection for political parties, but is that what these really are now with how they're structured (kinda like they're ticketmaster/livenation for politicians at this point)? I couldn't find an easy answer and trying to dive deeper keeps pulling up irrelevant articles.
You're viewing a single thread.
Many countries have first-past-the-post elections, and there usually we don’t see the mortal lock of the two major party like we see in the U.S.
In the UK for example there are regional parties (SNP, DUP, etc) and lib Dems/greens that win seats and send people to Westminster.
The main problem as far as I can see is that campaigning in the US is very expensive, and third parties have problems raising the cash needed to make a dent in elections for Congress, let alone statewide office.
To frame it in economic terms, it’s a market with a high barrier to entry that has evolved a duopoly. In that aspect it’s not too dissimilar to cable companies etc.
TLDR: Fuck citizens united
Watch this video about Represent Us https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfQij4aQq1k
Edit: changed to working link. Thanks
It didn't, but this one did: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfQij4aQq1k
Thanks for the surprise J-Law early in the morning! I'm a big fan.
She can't be beat but there are more Unbreaking America videos - https://representnv.us/unbreaking-america-videos/
This question was less about electoral practices are more about a single entity controlling the national level of it's party. I feel the function of these at a national level, can be argued as an organization/company which controls the market for their party. What "political party" protections are there and what distinguishes them from any other organization that could be regulated by the anti-competitive laws. I feel they are political in name only, and can truly be academically and legally viewed as a business (which supports mainly political clients).
1: FPTP is a terrible term as its literally not an accurate way to describe a "single-vote plurality wins" systrm like most of the USA has. When you use the phrase to someone who doesn't already agree that there are better ways its just inaccurate enough to sabatoge any point you might make.
2: the UK and other parliamentary systems have embedded rewards just for being "a party". There are only two parties in the USA becaue parties on their own have institutional recognition, and in our politocal contests there is no prize for second place.
-
it’s established terminology. I’m sure you have feelings about the term, but I’m not really invested in them either way.
-
I’m not sure what you are referring to
It's not really "established" becaue there isnt any formal body declaring what names different voting systems have.
Are you unclear about what recognition other demcracies give to parties, how there is no prize for 2nd place in America, or why that lack of such a prize gives rise to a two-party system?
It's not really "established" becaue there isnt any formal body declaring what names different voting systems have.
That is the most pompous way to say “I have never heard of political science”.
Are you unclear about what recognition other demcracies give to parties, how there is no prize for 2nd place in America, or why that lack of such a prize gives rise to a two-party system?
This is the most pompous way to say “I am unaware that lots of countries on this planet have district based systems”.
-