NationStates Jolt Archive

Why, in America, we have only a two party county? I mean sure, we have the libertarian parties, the isolationist parties, the communist parties and all that, but in reality we only have to real parties. While in Europe, its not odd for countries to have a good 4 or 5 main political parties....why is this? Why is Europe this way and why is America this way. Any light on the subject will help, also, post which way you think is better and why.

Because in the U.S., we have an unfortunate tendancy to see things in black and white terms. It is one of the side effects of having been founded by a bunch of puritans- What I believe is right and good, while what anyone else believes is wrong and EVIL. America is stuck with a two-party system because we have to have clear-cut good guys and bad guys. If we had a multi-party system, we couldn't demonize our enemies.

There are two reasons for that IMHO.

The first one is the election system in US (electoral college and all that) which makes vote for "small" parties somehow "wasted" votes. Like, if I were in US, I would probably want to vote for US Communist Party, or at least for the Greens, but this vote would be "wasted" and could lead to Republican winning, which I would want to avoid too. Most countries in Europe have a more fair election system were small parties vote are not wasted (sadly, in France, it's not really the case, our system sucks too, but a bit less than US one).

The second point is the importance of money is US politics. In Europe, parties receive public funding, and are strictly limited in how they can receive corporate funding. In USA, having support from big corporation is a must to have any chance of being heard. Corporations would not support a too leftish party, or a party with very few chance to win. Which ends up of having only two parties, a strong right one (supported by most corporations), and a moderate right one (mostly supported by educated/"open minded" buisness, like Hollywood).

Of course, there are also cultural and historical issues which play their role.

There are two reasons for that IMHO.

The first one is the election system in US (electoral college and all that) which makes vote for "small" parties somehow "wasted" votes. Like, if I were in US, I would probably want to vote for US Communist Party, or at least for the Greens, but this vote would be "wasted" and could lead to Republican winning, which I would want to avoid too. Most countries in Europe have a more fair election system were small parties vote are not wasted (sadly, in France, it's not really the case, our system sucks too, but a bit less than US one).

The second point is the importance of money is US politics. In Europe, parties receive public funding, and are strictly limited in how they can receive corporate funding. In USA, having support from big corporation is a must to have any chance of being heard. Corporations would not support a too leftish party, or a party with very few chance to win. Which ends up of having only two parties, a strong right one (supported by most corporations), and a moderate right one (mostly supported by educated/"open minded" buisness, like Hollywood).

Of course, there are also cultural and historical issues which play their role.

Wait wait wait wait wait.....Did you just put Hollywood and moderate right in the same sentance!?!? Thats like....a total oxymoron....

Uh, the Puritans weren't the first ones here nor were they the largest groups of settlers.

An explanation for the two party system comes from the US system of governance from plurality, or a "first past the post system", look it up on Wikipedia.

The United States does not typically have proportional representation granted in elections. This makes it very hard for smaller parties to gain power. You have to win it all to gain any seating.

Wait wait wait wait wait.....Did you just put Hollywood and moderate right in the same sentance!?!? Thats like....a total oxymoron....
The party supported by Hollywood (Democrats) is moderately right.

To be honest, I still don't know too much about the Irish system, but at least I can tell you about the German one.

Every adult citizen in Germany has two votes when voting for the national government (Bundestag). One vote to give to a candidate and one vote to give to a political party.
As a result, some candidates will be elected directly, and others will get seats in the Bundestag allocated by the percentage of votes their party got.
That way, you can support a candidate of a right-wing party because you think this person would do a great job, plus you can vote for a left-wing party because you agree with their program. Your candidate might get elected this way, and the left-wing party you voted for could get additional seats, which they can fill with whoever they want.
The only limit is the so-called 5%-Huerde, which means that every party has to get at least 5% of the total votes to be allowed into the Bundestag. If they get less, the votes will be void. That's been put into place to ensure that there will never again be too many timy fractions in parliament, as this has proved fatal for the parliament during the Weimar Republic, rendering it completely uncapable of action.
As a result, Germany normally has between 5-6 parties in the Bundestag, the normal form of government is a coalition between the party who gained the majority of the votes (absolute majorities are very rare) and one of the smaller parties.

The reason? The current democratic system of the Bundesrepublik is only 60 years old, and its creators had learned a lot from past mistakes...

To be honest, I still don't know too much about the Irish system...

Its PR-STV (Proportional Representation- Single Transferable Vote) as opposed to PR- List as is used in Spain.

Its really a bitch to explain as its the most complex (but therefore probably the 'fairest') and its best not to ask too many questions really :p but in essence you have a Constituency with 5 seats say.

There are 7 candidates (a sprinking from the large and small parties and a few independents) that battle for your No.1 vote. Your ballot paper has a list of all candidates and a box beside them. You put your votes in preference in which you would like to see get elected first, second, third, etc etc. So, A gets 1, B gets 2 and so forth until either you have filled in all the ones you want or until all candidates have been alloted a place on your ballot.

The candidate with the least number of 1st preference votes gets eliminated and their votes are the distributed amongst the other candidates according to the preferences on their ballots and the candidate with the most 1st preference votes is duely elected into the first vacant seat.... therefore there are now 5 candidates left and 4 seats.

This continues until all remaining seats have been filled. And it becomes very interesting when the 3rd or 4th choices are counted. Some people want a FF candidate 1st followed by Labour 2nd and FG 3rd, more people might want a FF person 1st, Labour 2nd and Sinn Fein 3rd.... therefore the Sinn Fein candidate will get the seat ahead of the FG one, even though the SF candidate was not the first choice of many (or any at all)

Its a complex but sound system that nearly ALWAYS results in a coalition being formed- meaning that a single party can never bully something through parliament on its own....

Phew.... hope that helped somewhat! :)

In the UK we have a first past the post system that allows corporate, trade union and private funding, yet there are three (national) parties with a significant number of seats in Parliament.

Frankly I think that this situation persists largely because neither of our two main parties particularly has any principles (and indeed spend most of their time trying to become each other), and because a lot of the people who are conscious of this (i.e. the section of the electorate that isn't so completely moronic as to vote Labour by default if they're "working class" or Conservative by default if they're "middle class") either can't rouse themselves to vote at all, or vote for the third party, the Liberal Democrats (who are similarly confused and inept) out of sheer disillusionment with whichever party should be appealing to them.

I am strongly against two-party systems. Here in poland, theres like 8 parties.

Its PR-STV (Proportional Representation- Single Transferable Vote) as opposed to PR- List as is used in Spain.

Its really a bitch to explain as its the most complex (but therefore probably the 'fairest') and its best not to ask too many questions really :p but in essence you have a Constituency with 5 seats say.

There are 7 candidates (a sprinking from the large and small parties and a few independents) that battle for your No.1 vote. Your ballot paper has a list of all candidates and a box beside them. You put your votes in preference in which you would like to see get elected first, second, third, etc etc. So, A gets 1, B gets 2 and so forth until either you have filled in all the ones you want or until all candidates have been alloted a place on your ballot.

The candidate with the least number of 1st preference votes gets eliminated and their votes are the distributed amongst the other candidates according to the preferences on their ballots and the candidate with the most 1st preference votes is duely elected into the first vacant seat.... therefore there are now 5 candidates left and 4 seats.

This continues until all remaining seats have been filled. And it becomes very interesting when the 3rd or 4th choices are counted. Some people want a FF candidate 1st followed by Labour 2nd and FG 3rd, more people might want a FF person 1st, Labour 2nd and Sinn Fein 3rd.... therefore the Sinn Fein candidate will get the seat ahead of the FG one, even though the SF candidate was not the first choice of many (or any at all)

Its a complex but sound system that nearly ALWAYS results in a coalition being formed- meaning that a single party can never bully something through parliament on its own....

Phew.... hope that helped somewhat! :)

It did, thank you. I can't claim that I fully understand how the votes will be counted, but at least I got the idea behind it.
It's a briliant system indeed, but I assume it takes a lot of effort to count those votes...

To be honest, I still don't know too much about the Irish system, but at least I can tell you about the German one.

Every adult citizen in Germany has two votes when voting for the national government (Bundestag). One vote to give to a candidate and one vote to give to a political party.
As a result, some candidates will be elected directly, and others will get seats in the Bundestag allocated by the percentage of votes their party got.
That way, you can support a candidate of a right-wing party because you think this person would do a great job, plus you can vote for a left-wing party because you agree with their program. Your candidate might get elected this way, and the left-wing party you voted for could get additional seats, which they can fill with whoever they want.
The only limit is the so-called 5%-Huerde, which means that every party has to get at least 5% of the total votes to be allowed into the Bundestag. If they get less, the votes will be void. That's been put into place to ensure that there will never again be too many timy fractions in parliament, as this has proved fatal for the parliament during the Weimar Republic, rendering it completely uncapable of action.
As a result, Germany normally has between 5-6 parties in the Bundestag, the normal form of government is a coalition between the party who gained the majority of the votes (absolute majorities are very rare) and one of the smaller parties.

The reason? The current democratic system of the Bundesrepublik is only 60 years old, and its creators had learned a lot from past mistakes...
We should adopt this system, I think.

I can't claim that I fully understand how the votes will be counted...

DON'T EVEN TRY!:eek: :D Thats where it gets all icky! I leave all the transfering stuff to the political scientists and statisticians.

A voters brain should turn off after this thought process:
"Who would I love to represent me..... Now who would I really like.... Now who would I kinda like....and lastly, who is 'not bad I suppose'....

Brain off.

Zzzzzzzz.....

:D :D

Here in Ireland we really only have 2 parties and the UK always had 2 but the Lib dems are starting to make it look like a 3 party country. ALMOST!

There are two reasons for that IMHO.

The first one is the election system in US (electoral college and all that) which makes vote for "small" parties somehow "wasted" votes. Like, if I were in US, I would probably want to vote for US Communist Party, or at least for the Greens, but this vote would be "wasted" and could lead to Republican winning, which I would want to avoid too.i absolutely agree with that, the voters in the us are "afraid, that their vote will be lost and that they will not be represented in the election result (as if anyone could trace back who they voted for). this leads to a selffulfilling prophecy, where everyone votes for the candidate, who they think will be able to win. some even suggest, that it is because they want to be on the winners side, so that after the election they can say to themselves: "look, my candidate won, i am with the winners!" again, totally ridiculous, because you can claim you voted for the winner regardless of who you voted for and nobody will ever find out because it is a secret ballot.Most countries in Europe have a more fair election system were small parties vote are not wastedi dont think it is more fair, because with the european system the parties have huge power, they can stuff people the voters dont actually like down their throats by putting them on the partys electionlist.

the problem is not the system, the problem is the voters, who are often afraid their vote will be lost (more a problem in the us system) or they dont hold politicians accountable for their policies (more a problem in the european system).

Here in Ireland we really only have 2 parties...

Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, Labour, PD's, Sinn Fein and then the smaller Socialist Workers parties and the 7/8 independents. Hasn't been a single party rule in about 20 years I believe, and they are the execption rather then the rule. That would never be the case in a 2 party system.

Those independents were the key to the last govt getting policy through remember.

The party supported by Hollywood (Democrats) is moderately right.

There is no way in hell the democrat party is moderately right....what the hell kinda dubies you on?

There is no way in hell the democrat party is moderately right....what the hell kinda dubies you on?

Compared to European politics- the US political spectrum for those two is:

Right Wing
Little-less-Right Wing

I'll leave it to you to figure out which is which. :)

There is no way in hell the democrat party is moderately right....what the hell kinda dubies you on?

I believe he is speaking worldwide. The democrats may be leftist pinko commies in the U.S., but compared to political parties around the world, the democrats actually fall just to the right of center. Actually, compared to parties around the world, the Dems and Reps are very close to one another.

Just as an example, take the UK's Labour and Conservative parties. Conservative is a tad more right wing than the U.S. Republicans, while Labour is a tad more leftist than the Democrats. There can be a bigger difference when you have more powerful third parties or if you have a multi-party system.

Some of it is due to cultural and historical influences; traditionally, the US was divided in to the industrial North and the agricultural South, with the result being the rise of two parties to represent the two interests. There were various third parties that arose in response to short lived occurences, and even an era of the one-party system.

Even though there are now more divides than North-South or commerce-agriculture, that mentality survived which explains why the two parties are ingrained culturally.

Politically, the electoral college maintains the two-party system due to the "winner take all" method of allocating electoral votes, so even if a third party gets 20 or 30% of the vote, if one candidate gets more than that, they win the entire state's electoral votes.

Compared to European politics- the US political spectrum for those two is:

Right Wing
Little-less-Right Wing

I'll leave it to you to figure out which is which. :)

Well maybe to Euroes our politics seem right wing, but to almost every American, the democrats represent the left in "american lifestyle" not european. As shown by notorious liberal left wing leaders such as John Kerry, Hillary Clitin, teddy kennedy...etc.....No one in their right mind would classify those guys as right or even "just a tad to the right of center".

Why, in America, we have only a two party county?


Because, according to Mr. Duverger and his law, single member district first-past-the-post electoral systems result in two party systems. Where only one party can win the whole thing contested, electoral contests end up narrowing down to "Winner" and "second-place opposition." The two biggest parties also tend to create electoral rules that favor a two party system. As a result, political elites are less likely to spend resources creating new parties when they are essentially doomed to failure. In addition, voters are more likely to fall into a "lesser than two evils" paradigm: for fear that the "worse" candidate will win, they refrain from voting for weaker "third" parties, and instead spend their vote on the strongest competition standing against the "greater evil."

Most European states do not have this problem, because most European states (in fact, most Western democracies in general) do not have single member district first-past-the-post systems. Instead, they have some kind of proportional representation electoral system, where parties win seats in legislatures in proportion to the percentage of the vote they win in an election.

(Edit: Or a state could employ a mixed system. For instance, in Germany and New Zealand, about half the legislature is elected by single member first-past-the-post while about the other half is elected according to proportional party-list. What makes the two cases interesting is that Germany (Weimar Republic) started with a purely proportional system and moved to mixed because the proportional system was seen as too chaotic, while New Zealand started with a purely first-past-the-post system and moved to mixed because Maori, women, and other minorities demanded greater representation.)

... the democrats represent the left in "american lifestyle" not european...

The Democrats are left alright- left of the Republican Party. They are still (on a global comparison) very much a right/centre-right party.
Not actually 'Left' by any stretch of the imagination! :p

Well maybe to Euroes our politics seem right wing, but to almost every American, the democrats represent the left in "american lifestyle" not european. As shown by notorious liberal left wing leaders such as John Kerry, Hillary Clitin, teddy kennedy...etc.....No one in their right mind would classify those guys as right or even "just a tad to the right of center".

While I agree that that is the perception in our American society, but riddle me this-
Do the democrats want immediate socialized medicine?
What about free college to everyone, even to Harvard?
What about a fifty % income tax?

These are things we may call socialist, but to the rest of the world, that is just the platform of one of the major parties. If all of them are not accepted as a given, much like we accept the right to bear arms as a given.

While I agree that that is the perception in our American society, but riddle me this-
Do the democrats want immediate socialized medicine?
What about free college to everyone, even to Harvard?
What about a fifty % income tax?

These are things we may call socialist, but to the rest of the world, that is just the platform of one of the major parties. If all of them are not accepted as a given, much like we accept the right to bear arms as a given.

No..they dont, because for the most part Americans as a whole are more conservative....even if they are not republicans.....but I am just saying, and forget it on a global scale...for AMERICANS because the democrat party only affects AMERICANS so who cares what it looks like to the rest of the world, the democrat party is left wing....for Americans the democrat party is left wing.

Why, in America, we have only a two party county? I mean sure, we have the libertarian parties, the isolationist parties, the communist parties and all that, but in reality we only have to real parties. While in Europe, its not odd for countries to have a good 4 or 5 main political parties....why is this? Why is Europe this way and why is America this way. Any light on the subject will help, also, post which way you think is better and why.

America has a two party system largely because we require more than 50% of the electoral vote in an election. If we had more major parties, then the vote would be split too many ways, and nobody would ever get over 50%.
It's an attempt to please the majority.

Another reason is that in order to win a seat in Congress (at least in the Senate), you have to get the backing of an entire state. While it is concievable that you could get 1% of the entire country to vote for, say, the Green Party (and hence get the Green Party one Senate seat), you need to get at least 51% of a state to vote for you to win a Senate seat. That is unlikely. Most senators are either Democrats or Republicans, with an independent here and there. A Green Party member in the House, I could see. A Green Senator, not likely.

Uh, the Puritans weren't the first ones here nor were they the largest groups of settlers.

An explanation for the two party system comes from the US system of governance from plurality, or a "first past the post system", look it up on Wikipedia.

The United States does not typically have proportional representation granted in elections. This makes it very hard for smaller parties to gain power. You have to win it all to gain any seating.
Canada uses first past the post and has four major parties.

We should adopt this system, I think.
We should too. Although, party discipline is so strong in Canada, you would basically get to votes for political parties. I suppose it could be modified so you get one "First Past the Post" vote and one "Perportional Vote."

No..they dont, because for the most part Americans as a whole are more conservative....even if they are not republicans.....but I am just saying, and forget it on a global scale...for AMERICANS because the democrat party only affects AMERICANS so who cares what it looks like to the rest of the world, the democrat party is left wing....for Americans the democrat party is left wing.
The Democrats affect much more than just America and Americans. Much, much more.

The Democrats affect much more than just America and Americans. Much, much more.

That may be, but we are not talking about Americas far reaching global influence, we are talking about an American party, voted on by the American people, who view it as a leftist party because that is the left that they are exposed to, not any party in England or Germany. So to us, it IS a left wing party, only because that is what we have here in America.

That may be, but we are not talking about Americas far reaching global influence, we are talking about an American party, voted on by the American people, who view it as a leftist party because that is the left that they are exposed to, not any party in England or Germany. So to us, it IS a left wing party, only because that is what we have here in America.
That is all true, but you denied your governments affect on the rest of the world.

That is all true, but you denied your governments affect on the rest of the world.

No I just meant that this is the American peoples political party (some of them) and I dont think it should matter if it is viewed a moderate from a European standpoint....because Europeans arnt the ones voting for or against it.

America has a two party system largely because we require more than 50% of the electoral vote in an election. If we had more major parties, then the vote would be split too many ways, and nobody would ever get over 50%.
It's an attempt to please the majority.
But in 2000, George W got 47.9% of the vote, compared to Al Gore's 48.4%. The majority lost.

If the Alternative Vote system of election was used, it would be possible to have multiple candidates for the presidency and still end up with a majority for the winner once the votes of the bottom candidates are re-distributed.

The alternative vote is a bit like the Irish STV system, but is used where only one person is being elected. Voters express their preferences in order - 1, 2, 3 etc. When the votes are counted, if no one gets over 50%, the bottom candidate is eliminated and his/her votes are re-distributed according to their next preference. The process continues through rounds of vote-counting until someone ends up with a majority.

No I just meant that this is the American peoples political party (some of them) and I dont think it should matter if it is viewed a moderate from a European standpoint....because Europeans arnt the ones voting for or against it.
We probably should be. It's hardly democratic to have the Leader of the World, who's policies have a significant effect on everyone, being elected by only 5% of the World.

We should too. Although, party discipline is so strong in Canada, you would basically get to votes for political parties. I suppose it could be modified so you get one "First Past the Post" vote and one "Perportional Vote."
The German Additional Member system (which is also used for the Scottish Parliament and elsewhere) is a great improvement on First-Past-the-Post, but still not as good as STV, in my opinion. Control over which candidates appear near the top of the additional-member list, and are likely to get elected, is entirely in the hands of the party machines. Under STV, the parties select their multiple candidates for a constituency, but then the voters decide which of those candidates get elected.

We probably should be. It's hardly democratic to have the Leader of the World, who's policies have a significant effect on everyone, being elected by only 5% of the world.
Well, if you want to vote so bad, nobody's stopping the entire planet from gaining US citizenship and property.

Two party system isn't the best, but there is a rather diverse mix of people's and standpoints within these parties. Leading to the parties running only the most extreme members, like Bush and Kerry. Opposites in every respect. But, since everyone here still thinks communism could work, or thinks that people can exist without government, we'll never be able to please anyone.

I would like to note that America does in fact have a communist party, as well as other small parties. Remember the whole disscussion of dogma between ruling of the people and ruling of the gentry in your history class when covering the founding of the American Republic? Federalists and the Democrats? That's where the electoral system comes from. The foundations of our countries domestic politics were started between faith in the government and faith in the people. In the Cold War, it turned to economics. Now its morals.

Its always been between two opposing views, not necessarily black and white, while its just easier to say it that way. In Europe, I find that many parties agree with eachother, with the whole pointless "grand coalition" thing. Why have so many parties that think the exact same thing, only varing on the same small things the Dems and GOP argue about?

- Mariehamn

Well, if you want to vote so bad, nobody's stopping the entire planet from gaining US citizenship and property.

Two party system isn't the best, but there is a rather diverse mix of people's and standpoints within these parties. Leading to the parties running only the most extreme members, like Bush and Kerry. Opposites in every respect. But, since everyone here still thinks communism could work, or thinks that people can exist without government, we'll never be able to please anyone.

I would like to note that America does in fact have a communist party, as well as other small parties. Remember the whole disscussion of dogma between ruling of the people and ruling of the gentry in your history class when covering the founding of the American Republic? Federalists and the Democrats? That's where the electoral system comes from. The foundations of our countries domestic politics were started between faith in the government and faith in the people. In the Cold War, it turned to economics. Now its morals.

Its always been between two opposing views, not necessarily black and white, while its just easier to say it that way. In Europe, I find that many parties agree with eachother, with the whole pointless "grand coalition" thing. Why have so many parties that think the exact same thing, only varing on the same small things the Dems and GOP argue about?

- Mariehamn

Well, in Germany for example you have the two major parties, CDU/CSU (conservative) and SPD (Labour). Both will normally gain more than 30% of votes, but none of them (as far as I know) ever got an absolute majority. Therefore, they are forced to rely on the smaller parties to form governments.
The thing with the major parties is, if you want to please 30% or more of the poplulation, you can't take any extreme stands on anything, you have to go with what the public wants. The small parties tend to be a lot extremer and more idealistic in their programs, so in the end, they will have a major influence on the direction of the coalition.

For example:
None of the two big German parties had considered enviromental issues in their party prgoram up til 1983. That year, the Green Party first got elected into the Bundestag, as a member of the opposition. It was a new party, with new concerns, tackling new issues. It was vehemently pacifistic, pro-feminist, social, and pro-enviromental, plus it was far more left-wing than any of the other parties in the Bundestag at the time.
As a result of this, over the next few years almost all parties added environmental issues to their party programs.

Another example would be the Republikaner party, a far (almost extreme) right party that formed itself in the 80s. It is a very nationalistic/jingoistic party, which had some clear influence on the German decisions regarding their legislation on political asylum and asylum seekers in the 90s.
This party never even made it into the Bundestag, but gained some influence on a local level in some of the Landtage. And yet that was sufficient influence to bring about a change in legislation, making it considerably harder for asylum seekers to obtain asylum in Germany.

Well maybe to Euroes our politics seem right wing, but to almost every American, the democrats represent the left in "american lifestyle" not european. As shown by notorious liberal left wing leaders such as John Kerry, Hillary Clitin, teddy kennedy...etc.....No one in their right mind would classify those guys as right or even "just a tad to the right of center".

Not just in Europe. Look at Latin America politics, for example, and you would see that the Democrats are really to the right of major parties there too, some even have the power.

Democrats are, compared to the world political spectrum, not just a bit to the right. They favor death penalty (well, not all of them, but those who don't usually don't dare to say it), they don't support any socialised social security system, they don't support any real working code, and so on.

Sure, they are less to the right than Republican. But in world political spectrum, the Republican are very, very far to the right.

Well, if you want to vote so bad, nobody's stopping the entire planet from gaining US citizenship and property.
Yes they are! The US government isn't going to open its borders to anyone and everyone who wants to go and live there, and it isn't going to grant citizenship to people who don't live there.

Two party system isn't the best, but there is a rather diverse mix of people's and standpoints within these parties. Leading to the parties running only the most extreme members, like Bush and Kerry. Opposites in every respect. But, since everyone here still thinks communism could work, or thinks that people can exist without government, we'll never be able to please anyone.
Everyone where thinks that communism could work? And how can you be sure it couldn't, if it was implemented properly (which it can't be, because the US government will do everything in its power to prevent it, even where a Communist government has been democratically elected)?

I would like to note that America does in fact have a communist party, as well as other small parties. Remember the whole disscussion of dogma between ruling of the people and ruling of the gentry in your history class when covering the founding of the American Republic? Federalists and the Democrats? That's where the electoral system comes from. The foundations of our countries domestic politics were started between faith in the government and faith in the people. In the Cold War, it turned to economics. Now its morals.
I suspect it's still mainly economics in the minds of politicians. The moral agenda is a nice diversionary tactic to keep attention away from the dubious activities of big business.

Its always been between two opposing views, not necessarily black and white, while its just easier to say it that way. In Europe, I find that many parties agree with eachother, with the whole pointless "grand coalition" thing. Why have so many parties that think the exact same thing, only varing on the same small things the Dems and GOP argue about?
It may be easier to see things in black and white, but that distorts the reality. Opposing parties in Europe don't think the exact same thing. Even if they agree on large areas, there are still differences of view and emphasis, and it's only right that the voters should be able to choose between those differences.

The two-party, one candidate per seat, system is the equvalent of being given a choice of going to a Chinese Restaurant or a Mexican Restaurant, but not being able to choose from the menu when you get there!

The party supported by Hollywood (Democrats) is moderately right.

Most people in Hollywood are Marxists. They practically shit their pants and swoon like girls in their adulation of Castro.

Not just in Europe. Look at Latin America politics, for example, and you would see that the Democrats are really to the right of major parties there too, some even have the power.

Democrats are, compared to the world political spectrum, not just a bit to the right. They favor death penalty (well, not all of them, but those who don't usually don't dare to say it), they don't support any socialised social security system, they don't support any real working code, and so on.

Sure, they are less to the right than Republican. But in world political spectrum, the Republican are very, very far to the right.

Ok, but what I am saying is that for the American public....JUST the AMERICAN public....the democrat party is left wing because that is what we are exposed to in this country. Who the hell cares what it is on a global spectrum because as far as I know, there arnt too many Europeans, South Americans, Canadians...etc voting in American politics. Does that make any sense? Thats all I'm saying. To us, its not right of moderate or even moderate, its left. TO US! And by the way, democrats are against the death penalty, and pro gay marriage and gay adoption, and pro taking God out of everything, and anti gun, and pro taxes and pro minority crap like affirmitive action and welfare.....so to AMERICANS...who cares what it seems like to some aborigine living in the middle of Australia....TO AMERICANS THAT is left wing.

Most people in Hollywood are Marxists. They practically shit their pants and swoon like girls in their adulation of Castro.

they are also total hypocrits, for instance, taking all the blacks from the L.A. ghettos and bussing them into schools in predominatly white areas where they dont do well and join gangs and cause trouble, then promote this action all the while sending their children to some all white rich privite schools out in Malibu. I used to live out there in wacky California....I know how things work there.

...TO AMERICANS THAT is left wing.

Well then, clearly Americans don't know what 'Left' in politics means.

Well then, clearly Americans don't know what 'Left' in politics means.

*DIES*


AHHHHH......Left in America has a different meaning that left in Europe.....we as a country are more conservative so it is natural that on a global spectrum our left is going to be not as left as other lefts. However, to Americans none of that matters....we live here, we vote here, and these are the rights and lefts we get exposed to. In this way...the democrat party is left and hillary clinton is almost a slightly less left and less attractive Fidel.

Well then, clearly Americans don't know what 'Left' in politics means.

Well, that's not necessarily true. The European idea of "left wing" (which is what is meant by the "world view") is only really in existence in Europe and Canada. For example, Japan's ideas are vastly different than US/Europe, in fact those of Asia in general are vastly different from what the West percieves as "left". To try and say that Americans don't understand "left" is inaccurate because there's no pure standard of left in the world.

Well, that's not necessarily true. The European idea of "left wing" (which is what is meant by the "world view") is only really in existence in Europe and Canada. For example, Japan's ideas are vastly different than US/Europe, in fact those of Asia in general are vastly different from what the West percieves as "left". To try and say that Americans don't understand "left" is inaccurate because there's no pure standard of left in the world.

*Orgasms*

*Faints*

*Revives*

I love you man.

It's more of a three party system in the USA with the 3rd being Independant. The sub parties (green, libertarian etc.) don't have the support to be more than they are. The majority of the people are either democrat, republican or center/Independant. I consider myself an Independant because there are parts of many parties that I like as well as parts I abhor. For instance I can't stand the religious right, but I do like laissez-faire capitalism. Another would be my hatred for liberal policies that give my tax dollars away to special interest groups, but I agree with the right to an abortion and making marijuana legal. I also agree with the libertarians with less government control over my life and I agree with the green party in that we need better environmental policies. There really isn't a party that I agree with 100% of what they believe in.

To try and say that Americans don't understand "left" is inaccurate because there's no pure standard of left in the world.
Agreed with your observations about Asian politics.

However, there is a standard of 'left' and 'right' in politics (political science if you want to be technical about it) for the global view- i.e the academic study of politics.

Example: Mussolini= Right Wing
Bolsheviks= Left Wing

They are constants in the political world.

If you want to get to the nitty gritty of examining each state then, yeah, we could be here all day figuring out who is 'left' and 'right' in every single state and comparing them to America/Europe/etc/etc

The reason for the 2 party system is that when the country was being founded there were 2 sides amongst the Founding Fathers-the Federalists and the anti-Federalists (Confederates, monarchists). It was a basic argument over who would have more power, the States or the National government.

You have to keep in mind that this is the United STATES (i.e., each state was its own sovereign country.) The Civil War was fought and the Federalists won. Now, the National government has more power than it did but the original division can still be seen between the 2 parties.

Also, the way our representative body's (House and Senate) are structured, it is really irrelevant now because both Dem and Repub have to build a coalition anyway. There are diiferent interests that align with the party that includes their concerns in the platform. So really, each party is its own coalition.

If you want to vote Green that's fine but you would be better served by voting Democrat because they are "Green friendly". If you're a Libertarian, you're better off voting Republican because there are a lot of Libertarian leaning people in that party. Now whether or not they listen is heavily dependent upon how active your interest is in pressing to have your issues adressed.

*DIES*


AHHHHH......Left in America has a different meaning that left in Europe.....we as a country are more conservative so it is natural that on a global spectrum our left is going to be not as left as other lefts. However, to Americans none of that matters....we live here, we vote here, and these are the rights and lefts we get exposed to. In this way...the democrat party is left and hillary clinton is almost a slightly less left and less attractive Fidel.

You're talking about the internal machinations of individual political party systems in individual states.

I am talking about politics as a whole- the study of political science.

Your argument holds as much water as saying the Mensheviks were Right Wing Fascists purely because they weren't as 'Left' as the Bolsheviks.... which is utter nonsense. Both parties were far-Left, one was merely further then the other.

This thread was saying that American and European Left/Right ideals =/=? Right?

Agreed.

But, in academia there has to be a political spectrum constant- something on which to compare ALL political systems- A is Left because B has Central policies and the policies of A (even though they are/might be in another country) are more Leftist then B.

Ergo: A is Left.

The reason for the 2 party system is that when the country was being founded there were 2 sides amongst the Founding Fathers

so absolutely wrong, and yet...

Also, the way our representative body's (House and Senate) are structured, it is really irrelevant now because both Dem and Repub have to build a coalition anyway. There are diiferent interests that align with the party that includes their concerns in the platform. So really, each party is its own coalition.

you seem to actually understand what really is going on, at least in broad strokes. so why bother with the irrelevant and incorrect beginning?

If you want to vote Green that's fine but you would be better served by voting Democrat because they are "Green friendly". If you're a Libertarian, you're better off voting Republican because there are a lot of Libertarian leaning people in that party. Now whether or not they listen is heavily dependent upon how active your interest is in pressing to have your issues adressed.

that may make sense for the greens - assuming one doesn't actually hold the green principles to be more important than winning via selling out to corporate cronies. but to say that libertarians should even consider voting for an outright authoritarian, pro-statist, anti-liberty party is just insane.

Example: Mussolini= Right Wing
Bolsheviks= Left Wing

Actually Mussolini and Hitler werent totally right wing....they were favored tons of government, nationalized economy....hardly any private enterprizes.....didnt like religion.....not exactly right wing....i like it better when they are plotted on a 4 point politcal spectrum not a 2 point one with left and right. Because Reagan are not similar at all...yet they are both considered right wing, but stalin and hitler were very similar and yet stalin is considered left wing....:confused:

We were just talking about this in my school's Democrat club today. Several members predicted a new Centrist party would appear, much like in Israel. Americans do seem to see in black and white. Also, the minor parties try too hard for presidential elections, they need to work their way up and do a lot of grassroots.

...Mussolini wasn't totally right wing....

Just because he didn't conform to a neat little picture of Right Wingedness(?) he was still Right Wing all things taken into consideration.... unless you're trying to put across Mussolini WASN'T in fact Right Wing at all...:confused:



but stalin and hitler were very similar and yet stalin is considered left wing....:confused:

Which is exactly why I didn't use either Hitler or Stalin- neither can be seen to be part of the political spectrum anymore than Totalitarian Dictators. They are both so similar because they both espoused the same end goals- total domination... albeit they fed their masses differing propaganda so as to appear 'Winged'

If you compare Mussolini to Trotsky... or Franco to Marxist inspired groups, you see the clear defining features of both Left and Right.

they were favored tons of government

not a distinguishing feature between left and right

nationalized economy....hardly any private enterprizes

not necessarily a distinguishing feature between left and right - it depends on the class interests being advanced

didnt like religion

not even true, and not a distinguishing feature

not a distinguishing feature between left and right



not necessarily a distinguishing feature between left and right - it depends on the class interests being advanced



not even true, and not a distinguishing feature

Yes it is to all of them. For religion, more Hitler than Stalin.

America was founded by two major parties:
the federalists and the anti-federalists.
The federalists favored big government
the anti-federalists favored small government.
It later evolved into dem. vs. whigs
and then into the current Dems. vs. Reps.
In the US, we don't go by world standards of right and left. We have what I call American Left and American Right. We don't call our liberals slightly right. We call them left. Our left might be the super-extreme, far, far, far too right to be right right in Europe, but we just don't care. We have our simple system. Most Americans don't like complex, unless it's American football. That's how it is.

If I made a party, it would grow slowly. It wouldn't try to go for first world emperor on day 1.

The Republicans and Democrats aren't parties, they're massive electing machines. You most likely cannot get elected without belonging to either party. You most defiantly won't get any media attention without belonging to either of them (Remember when Nader was frozen out of the debates?). And when you're a politician, media attention is life itself.

I don't know who the hell you are.
Until you've taken close to 90 hours of history and poli sci, read scores of books on both subjects, written hudreds of papers and attended as many conferences as I have, then I will listen to you. You clearly haven't, so get to work.

The reason for the 2 party system is that when the country was being founded there were 2 sides amongst the Founding Fathers-the Federalists and the anti-Federalists (Confederates, monarchists). It was a basic argument over who would have more power, the States or the National government.


The federalist/anti-federalist (Which is supposed to be "monarchist?") conflict is not the cause of the two-party system, but rather just another symptom. This conflict defined whether the United States would become a Federation or a Confederation, however, the roots of the two-party system go back even further than that: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10241693&postcount=22 . Note that the political entity from which the United States seceded employs similar electoral methods.


You have to keep in mind that this is the United STATES (i.e., each state was its own sovereign country.) The Civil War was fought and the Federalists won. Now, the National government has more power than it did but the original division can still be seen between the 2 parties.


I think it would be more accurate to say that both the modern Republican and Democratic parties represent strong federalist tendencies, favoring the centralized government over state's rights. Republicans tax and spend, spend, spend while consistantly working to expand the power of the executive branch, and the Democrats favor centralized regulatory authority embodied by the welfare state, education, and gun control measures, etc.


If you're a Libertarian, you're better off voting Republican because there are a lot of Libertarian leaning people in that party.


I can think of exactly one (http://www.house.gov/paul/).

I don't know who the hell you are.
Until you've taken close to 90 hours of history and poli sci, read scores of books on both subjects, written hudreds of papers and attended as many conferences as I have, then I will listen to you. You clearly haven't, so get to work.

Argumentum ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem).

If the argument presented is false, you need to attack the argument, not the one making it.

Why, in America, we have only a two party county? I mean sure, we have the libertarian parties, the isolationist parties, the communist parties and all that, but in reality we only have to real parties. While in Europe, its not odd for countries to have a good 4 or 5 main political parties....why is this? Why is Europe this way and why is America this way. Any light on the subject will help, also, post which way you think is better and why.


If we had it the way good ol' Washington wanted it (and had it for a short short while), we'd have a one/no party system. I'm not sure how it would have worked, though.

Argumentum ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem).

it's also counts as an appeal to (personal) authority

I think most of the reasons for the two-party system have been covered already. I would just like to add that, unlike most other posters I have seen, I prefer a two-party system. It tends to force politics more toward the center and further from extremist positions.

Really, it's just like the game where one person says "Pick a number between one and one hundred." The first player always picks 50 or 51 (assuming an apparently random number generation and two mathematically adept players). The second always picks whichever number was not picked by the first. Considering the number scale to be the political spectrum, both parties are very close together in terms of idealogy, which is a natural consequence of their efforts to capture the most votes. If Player A picked, say twenty-five, Player B would immediately pick 26 in order to have the greatest chance of a victory. The same is true of politics in America - one wants to appear just a little to the left (or right) of one's opponent, in order to gain the most votes.

Adding a third player, however, changes the game dynamics considerably. Assume, for a moment, that the first player chooses 50 as he would normally do. Let the second player also behave as before, and choose 51. Now the third player will logically choose either 52 or 49; almost completely cutting off one of the other players. This is not desirable for the cut-off player. Naturally, he will have foreseen this, and will have chosen a different position - one further from the center. A greater number of parties gives more impulse toward extremism in a society that functions the way the U.S. does.

There are, of course, other factors - but the purpose of the above comparison is just to illustrate the effect of single parties vs. multiple parties in this one arena.

This effect, incidentally, is precisely why the Democratic and Republican parties seem so similar (nearly identical, even) to most foreigners. They are used to much greater differences among the real "players", and these do not exist in America.

It tends to force politics more toward the center and further from extremist positions.

unfortunately, playing to the center doesn't work when one side keeps pushing further in one direction and the other side keeps chasing them. especially when between them they also control the political discourse of the country and set the terms of what is inside and outside the limits of that discourse.

I think most of the reasons for the two-party system have been covered already. I would just like to add that, unlike most other posters I have seen, I prefer a two-party system. It tends to force politics more toward the center and further from extremist positions.


Of course, what is considered "center" politics will vary from political culture to political culture (what Americans call "center" is often called "Authoritarian right" in other states). A two party system may seem desirable for it's apparent stability (today's Germany vs. Weimar Republic), but it can also pose a serious problem for minorities and others lacking political representation (pre-1993 New Zealand vs. post-1993 New Zealand).

When a political minority feels that it cannot articulate/aggregate its demands effectively, it can turn to protest, not necessarily of the peaceful variety. If the situation is severe enough, violence could be considered a legitimate means of brining change. Depending on where exactly "center" is, and depending on the channels available (if any) to political minorities, a two-party system could very well lead to instability and violence.

Whether or not a two-party system is desirable depends on the specifics of a particular case. Generalizations can lead to very serious problems. :)

I don't know who the hell you are.
Until you've taken close to 90 hours of history and poli sci, read scores of books on both subjects, written hudreds of papers and attended as many conferences as I have, then I will listen to you. You clearly haven't, so get to work.

90 hours! Wow! That's almost an entire first year semester!

90 hours! Wow! That's almost an entire first year semester!

Dont tickle the troll's scrotum.

Dont tickle the troll's scrotum.

How do we know it's a mantroll?

How do we know it's a mantroll?

Women trolls are very rare though. We've the odds on our side.

Women trolls are very rare though. We've the odds on our side.

Plus, its this time of the month for them. So they are, lets just say, out of comission.....for the time being.

Plus, its this time of the month for them. So they are, lets just say, out of comission.....for the time being.

Just to be clear on this, are you saying that you have personal knowledge of every single woman trolls mensural cycle or that all women trolls have periods at exactly the same time?

unfortunately, playing to the center doesn't work when one side keeps pushing further in one direction and the other side keeps chasing them. especially when between them they also control the political discourse of the country and set the terms of what is inside and outside the limits of that discourse.

The center is determined by the people. It is in the best interests of both parties to be just on either side of the center; if the Republicans, for instance, started pushing right (and the citizens did not), they would lose votes. Therefor, they are not logically going to do this. Of course, there are many forces, some of them political, that can create swings of public opinion toward either end of the spectrum.

Of course, what is considered "center" politics will vary from political culture to political culture (what Americans call "center" is often called "Authoritarian right" in other states). A two party system may seem desirable for it's apparent stability (today's Germany vs. Weimar Republic), but it can also pose a serious problem for minorities and others lacking political representation (pre-1993 New Zealand vs. post-1993 New Zealand).

When a political minority feels that it cannot articulate/aggregate its demands effectively, it can turn to protest, not necessarily of the peaceful variety. If the situation is severe enough, violence could be considered a legitimate means of brining change. Depending on where exactly "center" is, and depending on the channels available (if any) to political minorities, a two-party system could very well lead to instability and violence.

Whether or not a two-party system is desirable depends on the specifics of a particular case. Generalizations can lead to very serious problems.

BOCTAOE. (http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/01/silent_words.html) Indeed, I was not trying to set up some absolute rule that should be used to evaluate all governments. I merely point out a trend that no one has yet observed, and one which tends to limit control of the government to centrists. I further state that I view this, generally, as a good thing. The problems you mention - minorities lacking representation and violence resulting from this - are, for the most part, either endemic to all democracies (surely the minority must be overruled on some points), or would have been exasperated has those with more extreme positions been in control of the government. BOCTAOE.

I'm not sure, am I European or American? I think our Prime Minister thinks we're American. I'll vote for that.

if the Republicans, for instance, started pushing right (and the citizens did not), they would lose votes. Therefor, they are not logically going to do this.

unfortunately the facts on the ground don't show this to be the case. most americans actually hold opinions to the left of the democrats on a wide variety of issues. poll any republican position on its own and it polls poorly. but the political discourse has been so fuct that you'd never guess.

The problems you mention - minorities lacking representation and violence resulting from this - are, for the most part, either endemic to all democracies (surely the minority must be overruled on some points)


The problem occurs not because some faction simply loses an election. First-past-the-post/two-party systems present the very real possibility of election of government by the minority of voters. My Congressional district elected a new representative last month. Not only does the actual number of people who voted represent a minority of the overall population (low voter turnout being another possible effect of first-past-the-post/two-party systems...no point in voting if my preferred choice stands no realistic chance), but then less than 50% of that voted for the winner. More people voted against the man than for. A minority of a minority established exclusive political representation.

So actually, the under-represented "minority" in this case is the majority of the population in my Congressional district. Because of the first-past-the-post/two-party system, my voice, and the voices of most people in my district, remain unheard. ( :confused: :mad: :headbang: )

Why, in America, we have only a two party county? I mean sure, we have the libertarian parties, the isolationist parties, the communist parties and all that, but in reality we only have to real parties. While in Europe, its not odd for countries to have a good 4 or 5 main political parties....why is this? Why is Europe this way and why is America this way. Any light on the subject will help, also, post which way you think is better and why.

It stemmed from the way political parties formed early in the Republic. Either a pro-government or an anti-government pull. A liberal or conservative interpretation of the Constitution.

Now, the two parties have no real difference between another, but that was because today's American citizens have not gotten smart enough to vote based on principle and people really don't have much of a reform movement to jump onto because the republican and democrat parties have one thing that third parties don't have. Organization.

Just to be clear on this, are you saying that you have personal knowledge of every single woman trolls mensural cycle or that all women trolls have periods at exactly the same time?

Thats for me to know and for you to NEVER, EVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE find out.;)

Yes it is to all of them. For religion, more Hitler than Stalin.

so if a monarchist movement sprung up that favored the old ideal of the kingdom and everything in it belonging to the monarch, then that would be a left-wing movement according to your system?

as would a movement that aimed at grossly inequal distributions of wealth and power, but happened to be atheist?

It stemmed from the way political parties formed early in the Republic.... A liberal or conservative interpretation of the Constitution.

that's just historically inaccurate.

I'm not sure, am I European or American? I think our Prime Minister thinks we're American. I'll vote for that.

Nice shot.
I think Australia has more in common politically with America than Europe, except less conservatives.

I think Australia has more in common politically with America than Europe

That what I like to hear!:) Whoo, go Australia.

Nice shot.
I think Australia has more in common politically with America than Europe, except less conservatives.

Yeah. And then there's New Zealand, which is more "European".