NationStates Jolt Archive

I posted this on another forum. The reading level is a little lower than usual since it was originally geared toward other high-schoolers, but read it anyway:



*shock and horror*

I know that may seem hard to believe, and it wasn't intended that way, but listen! The Constitution says that for a candidate to win the presidency, s/he has to win more than half of the Electoral College. Think about that for a moment. That means that in any given election, there cannot be more than two candidates of near-equal strength, or it's thrown to the House of Representatives. This makes plenty of sense when put into the historical context - they wanted to ensure that the president actually had a majority of support. The delegates drafting the Constitution also opposed the notion of political parties (never mind that they were the ones who later formed them), so it would be an assortment of different individual candidates each time. Translating this into modern times, though, there are parties and this means that there can't be more than two strong parties at one time. It's turned out this way throughout history - as soon as one party becomes dominant, it splits or a new opposition springs up, and as soon as a third party gains ground one of the original two parties drops away. I was reading the Encyclopedia Brittanica this weekend, and here's basically how the history breaks down:

Nonpartisan leadership (aka George Washington)

Jeffersonian Republicans (split) & Federalists (died)

Democrats (held out) & National Republicans (died)

Democrats (held out) & Whigs (were replaced)

Democrats (current) & Republicans (current)

Anyway, I think that the two-party system is hurting our democracy. Regardless of whether you support the GOP, the Dems, or a third party, I think we can agree that diversity of viewpoints is essential to democracy. With political parties and this clause in our Constitution, it's not working.

I shy away from suggesting an amendment, but it's food for thought.

Too bad you'll need to create a powerful poltical party to change that system.

Its no shock that both parties like it the way it is. Basically there is no democracy, you only get two choices.

What's surprising is the wide range of strong third parties across Europe, as compared to America.

What's surprising is the wide range of strong third parties across Europe, as compared to America.

That's largely because of the parlimentary system, which allows for coalition building. Since the Constitution requires 50%+1 of the Electorial Votes, you can't have a 26% party and a 25% party get together and form a coalition government.

Since third parties syphon votes from one of the two major parties, they almost never gain ground, because people would rather hold their nose and go with the major party than vote their conscience and give the election to the opposition party. The only way third parties will gain power is for people in "stronghold" states to vote in high numbers for them. ie: Californians supporting Greens, or Texans supporting Libertarians.

Of course, this doesn't happen. Even in the Senate election in Illinois (where Obama annihilated Keyes), third party canidates didn't pull any larger than normal, which is pretty sad, as Keyes didn't stand a chance.