NationStates Jolt Archive

Yeah. Smaller party candidates definitely need to have their voices heard.

[Note- the title is a typo...should be 'forced' not 'forces'... =P]

Of cource we have our many parties here in the wonderful united states, so many are accepted to run for political office that it is easy to mistake our system as multi-party but indeed after close look it seems we end up with only two choices for our 'big' policial office positions. We look to only two nominees now as our hardened and narrowed down choices, Obama - Democrat and McCain - Republican, so much so that we hardly pay any attention to anyone else within the election. We have gotten to the point where the so-called 'extra' parties are named as third party contenders, democrats and repulicans being the first two parties on everyones minds.

Now I cannot think about this without making it clear about how I feel about this, personally it seems our media itself have forced this two-party system into our minds by promoting debates and information about only or mainly those two parties. When was the last time you saw a green party debate on CNN?

So has it come down to where we only have two choices anymore, right or wronge, good or evil...pancakes or waffles...still though it seems with so much attention being poured into our two canidates that we have forgotten that this is america, a system where anyone...who is a legal natual-born citizen of 35 years of age...can run for president and that there are many more choices then said democrats and republicans and if we can support other parties we may one day escape this two-party system which has been forced down our throats.

(Just an observation...a small observation but im bored...)

Trust me, I've seen it too. If the big media outlets actually had debates between the major party candidates and the smaller party candidates...

Well, if it happened often enough, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be a "Two party system" anymore ;)

Trust me, I've seen it too. If the big media outlets actually had debates between the major party candidates and the smaller party candidates...

Well, if it happened often enough, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be a "Two party system" anymore ;)

Wrong - you would. The "winner takes all" system used kinda forces you to have two parties that both focus on the same area of the political spectrum, ignoring the overwhelming majority of it.

Wrong - you would. The "winner takes all" system used kinda forces you to have two parties that both focus on the same area of the political spectrum, ignoring the overwhelming majority of it.

Yep. If a strong third party were to emerge it would merely replace one of the two major parties or die. In the UK the old two parties were the Liberals and the Conservatives. Then the Labor party formed, and it eventually cast the Liberals aside for all practical purpose.

Wrong - you would. The "winner takes all" system used kinda forces you to have two parties that both focus on the same area of the political spectrum, ignoring the overwhelming majority of it.

I think the separation of the executive from the legislature is a strong factor, too. A Parliamentary system of government would (and does elsewhere) support multiple parties, but having a single, directly-elected executive office makes it almost impossible for a third party to compete. As William Jennings Bryan and Teddy Roosevelt demonstrated, a strong third candidate is basically a spoiler.

I don't think the media, alone, has anything to do with why we have a two party system.

You see the states control the rules for how a candidate can get on their ballot. As such the states can make it as easy or as difficult as they like for an independent candidate in any race.

For example, in Texas, for example, in order to get on the ballot in a gernal election, the party must have received 5% of the vote in the previous general election. New parties, or parties that did not meet this requirement must collect signatures equalling 1% of the total votes cast in the previous general election.

Independent candidates can get on the ballot by collecting a certain number of signatures on a nominating petition equal to a percentage of the total number of votes cast in the previous general. The percentage required varies depending on the office sought.

These type of state limitation, along with limited media coverage of "Third Party" and independent candidates limits exposure. I think the differing rules by states are the biggest culperate though.

I think the separation of the executive from the legislature is a strong factor, too. A Parliamentary system of government would (and does elsewhere) support multiple parties, but having a single, directly-elected executive office makes it almost impossible for a third party to compete. As William Jennings Bryan and Teddy Roosevelt demonstrated, a strong third candidate is basically a spoiler.


Even the House and Senate are very limited in political parties. Of the 100 members of the Senate 49 are Republicans, 49 are Democrates, and 2 are Independent. In the House of Representatives it is 236 Democrats, and 199 Republicans with no Independent or other party members.

This is where the disparity leads and on this could I blame the minor parties. If thye took more interest in positions other than President, maybe they could eventually have a chance at the Presidency.

Even the House and Senate are very limited in political parties. Of the 100 members of the Senate 49 are Republicans, 49 are Democrates, and 2 are Independent. In the House of Representatives it is 236 Democrats, and 199 Republicans with no Independent or other party members.

This is where the disparity leads and on this could I blame the minor parties. If thye took more interest in positions other than President, maybe they could eventually have a chance at the Presidency.

I think it's a bit of chicken-and-egg. It's difficult to gain the Presidency if your party isn't established, but it's difficult to establish yourself in lower offices if people realize your party has no chance of holding executive power.

Canada has sustained a multiparty system (barely) in a large part because the executive has to command a majority in the legislature in order to govern. If our exec was elected separately and could operate independently of the leg it would be nigh on impossible to convince anyone to vote NDP, who only wields power (at the federal level, anyway) as a potential kingmaker in minority governments. They couldn't get anything done in a presidential system, and would have withered away by now.

I think it's a bit of chicken-and-egg. It's difficult to gain the Presidency if your party isn't established, but it's difficult to establish yourself in lower offices if people realize your party has no chance of holding executive power.

That really isn't true given the US structure of government. Remember each state has its own legislature that is supposedly representative of the state electorate. In Texas, for example, the senate is 11 Democrats and 20 Republicans, not a single independent party, even though the Libritarian Party is a moderate following in the state. The Texas House is 70 Democrats, and 79 Republilcans with 1 vacancy. Again, no Independent or third parties. I can tell you from experience, that in general elections for any position other than govenor in the state, I have never had a third party on the ballot. Additionally, for most local positions, city and county, I have never seen a third party on the ballot.

This is where they problem lies when combined with Texas' election requirements. If these parties really wanted power they would begin a basic grassroots effort to get members into the city and county governments of the states, then start making inroads into the state governments, then push for federal power. Unfortunately, they all of the attitude that the only way to get recognized is through the Presidential election, and inherently no party is going to get elected if their party weilds no power on the local level.

Quite frankly, if the third parties really wanted into power, the place to make their move is in local city, most major cities aren't nonpartisan, county, and state governments. Once you get yourself established, then you push for your federal positions.

Even the House and Senate are very limited in political parties. Of the 100 members of the Senate 49 are Republicans, 49 are Democrates, and 2 are Independent. In the House of Representatives it is 236 Democrats, and 199 Republicans with no Independent or other party members.

This is where the disparity leads and on this could I blame the minor parties. If thye took more interest in positions other than President, maybe they could eventually have a chance at the Presidency.

As noted, the big party made rules like winner take all and ballot thresholds are a large part of the system that keeps 'third parties' down.

And you're absolutely right, 'third' parties need to focus on local races to make their in-roads. Local elections are easier and cheaper to contest, have a more direct effect on the community, and perhaps most importantly, set the rules for elections. If a coalition of third parties works their way from local elections to state legislatures, then they have a voice in the rules that put candidates on the ballot and give access to the resources that the major parties have.

The whole point of Nader's initial candidacy was to garner the Green party it's 15% threshold to be eligible for federal funding. He was supposed to nod out if the election seemed too close, but he didn't. Which is why he is no longer the Green candidate.

To that end, people in 'safe' districts can do that work. If there is little chance that your county or state will go for the 'other guy' (who ever that 'other guy' is for you) then you can cast your vote for who you actually want instead of against the person you don't in the hopes that you help them reach threshold. I've been doing this for a while, deciding long ago that I would only vote for people not against. But between living in Santa Cruz and San Francisco, even with the numbers of people who do the same as I do, the 'other guy' isn't likely to win.

But as said by the above quote, the most inroads can be made through local elections up.

Well, what happens in the United States is the same thing that happens in any nation that has First Past the Post or variants thereof; you end up with two strong parties representing the opposing sides of the political spectrum, although I do agree, you sometimes end up with a third party. New Zealand had National and Labour back in FPP days, with Social Credit being the third party (although it only ever got 2 seats). Australia has Labor and the Liberals/Nationals, with very minor small parties. Britain, similar situation, although the Liberal Democrats are reasonably strong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_Law

been there, etc.

You're much more likely to get a third party from a split in one of the current two than from a complete grass roots movement. See the thread about split in the republican party coalition.

The Labour party gained prominence following a level of co-operation with the Liberal party, a major change in the electorate and a big split in the Liberal party of the time. We've just about become a relevant third party again relatively recently.

I think the separation of the executive from the legislature is a strong factor, too. A Parliamentary system of government would (and does elsewhere) support multiple parties, but having a single, directly-elected executive office makes it almost impossible for a third party to compete. As William Jennings Bryan and Teddy Roosevelt demonstrated, a strong third candidate is basically a spoiler.

you could probably do it if you had a system that encouraged multiple parties in the legislature and also had a voting system for the executive other than a single ballot first-past-the-post one. because if you had, for example, proportional representation in the legislature and first-past-the-post for the executive, then somebody is bound to figure out that if they cooperate with one or more of the other parties and back a single candidate, they will be more likely to win. but france manages to pull off presidential elections with multiple parties legitimately having a shot at making it to the second round.