2 Party System Vs. 3+ Party System

[eagle_eye222001]

So I had an idea.

If you were to redo the political system, would you form it so that it would be set up inherently as a two-party system, or would you attempt to copy what other nations do, and set up the system to allow 3+ parties?


America is a great example of a two party system as it is a winner-take all scenario. However, if it was not a winner-take all, would that be better as a party that got 19% or so would be guaranteed a similar percentage spot in "Congress?"

[4588686]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1347260336' post='2480918']
So I had an idea.

If you were to redo the political system, would you form it so that it would be set up inherently as a two-party system, or would you attempt to copy what other nations do, and set up the system to allow 3+ parties?


America is a great example of a two party system as it is a winner-take all scenario. However, if it was not a winner-take all, would that be better as a party that got 19% or so would be guaranteed a similar percentage spot in "Congress?"
[/quote]

There's nothing that says that the system must involve only two parties. I wonder why we went there so quickly and have remained in a two party system for so long. I'm sure some game theorist somewhere has plotted out an answer to that question.

[Nihil Obstat]

I would go to neo-feudalism.

[Papist]

I don't know if people can handle hating another party.

[sixpence]

We do have a 3+ party system. It is just that 2 of them have become most popular (and polarized themselves). I would like to blame the people who refuse to vote for weaker parties on the basis that they probably cannot win. It becomes a game of "who do I absolutely NOT want to win" vs "who do I actually like".

Edited September 10, 2012 by sixpence

[BG45]

[quote name='sixpence' timestamp='1347306335' post='2481048']
We do have a 3+ party system. It is just that 2 of them have become most popular (and polarized themselves). I would like to blame the people who refuse to vote for weaker parties on the basis that they probably cannot win. It becomes a game of "who do I absolutely NOT want to win" vs "who do I actually like".
[/quote]

This, entirely this. We have dozens if not hundreds of political parties in America. However we've locked ourselves into this two party paradigm where anyone who announces they intend to vote for one of the "third" parties is belittled and that party is outspent by vast margins by the Big Two, who launch media offensives to discredit anyone who might be a threat.

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='sixpence' timestamp='1347306335' post='2481048']
We do have a 3+ party system. It is just that 2 of them have become most popular (and polarized themselves). I would like to blame the people who refuse to vote for weaker parties on the basis that they probably cannot win. It becomes a game of "who do I absolutely NOT want to win" vs "who do I actually like".
[/quote]

Actually we don't have a 3+ party system as I'll explain below. Although I definitively agree elections (especially the presidential elections of 2008, 2012, and 2016) tend to become a lot more of negation votes than positive votes.

[quote name='BG45' timestamp='1347307746' post='2481067']
This, entirely this. We have dozens if not hundreds of political parties in America. However we've locked ourselves into this two party paradigm where anyone who announces they intend to vote for one of the "third" parties is belittled and that party is outspent by vast margins by the Big Two, who launch media offensives to discredit anyone who might be a threat.
[/quote]

Not really.

America has an inherent two party system due to how our government is set up and has nothing to do with money.



The reason other nations have third parties that are more predominant than in America is due to the following example.

If a party in various countries in the world gets 20% of the vote, they get 20% representation. In America, if a third party gets 20% in an election, how much representation do they get? Zero. They lost. And the next election, they are eaten up by the major party that lost the previous election in an attempt to beat the other major party. Thus when a major party loses, they attempt to make the tent bigger and bigger to include more people. Every presidential election, we hear the endless analysis on who is getting the independent vote. Why is this? It is because both major parties fight to extend their tents to include just enough and capture the magic middle of the political spectrum.

America's elections are set up for winner take all. Due to this, America has an inherent two party system. We can never break out of this without radically changing the Constitution. If you look back into American history, there have always been two major parties. They have gone by different names, but by and large, America only has two predominant parties at any given time.

Now parties can go defunct and out of existence. but they are essentially replaced or reformed. There is never a real net increase or loss of the two parties.


My question is based on whether a different model of government would be better if it was set up to allow 2nd place representation? This would encourage the growth of third parties as opposed to our system that discourages third parties from growing.

I'm not advocating we switch necessarily, but I think it would be helpful to think of the advantages and disadvantages of each.

--------------

I apologize for not clarifying more.

[eagle_eye222001]

An example.


There is an election and 3 parties run. Party 1, party 2, and party 3.

Party 1 gets 45%
Party 2 gets 40%
Party 3 gets 15%

_____________________

In America, who wins? Party 1 wins with our winner take all method and parties 2 and 3 get NOTHING!

So what happens in between the next election? How is party 2 going to get to its goal of winning? Who do they need to convince to join them so they can win?

If Party 2 can incorporate party 3 into their party platform for the next election, then party 2 wins! And party 3 gets something as well as opposed to nothing. Basically party 3 was bought by party 2.

And the cycle continues. This is why there is no major third party in America. Winner take all leaves no incentive to be content with second place in an election. In other nations, second place may well get you some representation still.



Something to think about. I'm not convinced of other methods being that much better, but I thought it might be worthwhile to think of the pros and cons of such systems.
_____________


edited for clarity.

Edited September 10, 2012 by eagle_eye222001

[eagle_eye222001]

.

Edited September 10, 2012 by eagle_eye222001

[Groo the Wanderer]

Two parties: Orthodox Catholics and anti-God athiestic humanistic social relativists

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1347328963' post='2481180']
Two parties: Orthodox Catholics and anti-God athiestic humanistic social relativists
[/quote]

Fifty thousand parties:

Catholic Church, Baptist Church and thousands of off-shoots of it, the Methodist Church and the thousands of off-shoots of it, the Mennonite Church, the Mormon Church, the Jehovah's Witness Church, the Pentecostal Church and its thousands of off-shoots, the...

[Slappo]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1347336623' post='2481218']
Fifty thousand parties:

Catholic Church, Baptist ecclesial community [s]Church[/s] and thousands of off-shoots of it, the Methodist ecclesial community [s]Church[/s] and the thousands of off-shoots of it, the Mennonite ecclesial community [s]Church[/s], the Mormon [s]Church[/s], the Jehovah's Witness ecclesial community [s]Church[/s], the Pentecostal ecclesial community [s]Church[/s] and its thousands of off-shoots, the...
[/quote]

fixed

[Groo the Wanderer]

FP - they are denominations. Catholic and Orthodox are Churches (big C). Slappo slapped ya

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1347401640' post='2481473']
FP - they are denominations. Catholic and Orthodox are Churches (big C). Slappo slapped ya
[/quote]

Around here in the Bible Belt they are only known as Churches. I have never heard the distinction before.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1347419409' post='2481552']
Around here in the Bible Belt they are only known as Churches. I have never heard the distinction before.
[/quote]

The distinction, essentially, is that they do not have valid orders. It is a Catholic distinction, not a wider one.

Edited September 12, 2012 by Nihil Obstat

[Groo the Wanderer]

the current 2 potty system

[img]http://coachjoeenglish.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/two_potties.jpg[/img]

[dairygirl4u2c]

plus in a way even if we don't have a three or mor eeparty system per se, we still have an array to pick from. at every primary election, there's an array of people, be they more on the conservative side or more liberal. within that framework, it's easy to argue we have at least a three party system.
the only real problem is when politicians feel the need to adhere themself to party line to get backing, when we have only two artificial contemporary party lines.
but all said and done, we have plenty of choice at the primaries.
i used to be a big advocate of three plus parties but then realized we already had soemthing close enough.

[Ed Normile]

We have never had a inherent 2 party system of politics in America. There are tons of other parties, but the majority of this we elect to represent us belong to one of the two major parties due to many reasons including funding and the old one hand washes the other practises in politics. Third parties such as the green party, Ralph Nader being the most memorable member, the Constitution Party, Bob Smith being the most memorable and a Roman catholic, The Libertarian party perhaps the most notable member being Ron Paul, and they can claim to be the third largest party in America, yet they have never held a house or senate seat, and only in 1972 did they ever get an electorial college vote. We as Americans live in a Republic, not a democracy and as a Republic we elect representatives to vote as we hope they will to represent us. This vote is swayed by promises and moreso by money, which always goes to the parties with the most power, which is afterall the parties of those we elect.

In short, how has it come down to a two party system, that is what we as Americans have voted for.

ed

Edited September 16, 2012 by Ed Normile

[Anomaly]

We don't have a third party on the national level because most voters don't care enough. In today's world you don't start off with a national party from nothing. The Tea Party could become a legitimate party, but it lacks clear focus, unifying personality, and has to overcome negative media spin because it tends to be more conservative the the mAjority media opinion.

[Norseman82]

Another thing to keep in mind is National Popular Vote Interstate Compact:

[url="http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/explanation.php"]http://www.nationalp...explanation.php[/url]

In summary, when the states that sign on reach a total of 270 electoral votes among themselves, they agree to award all their electors to the winner of teh national popular vote. I don't think this will help third party causes, because it would only increase the whole winner-take-all scenario and make people more sensitive to splitting their vote against the opposition (as opposed to now, where someone in California, New York, Illinois, Texas, or Idaho may decide that their state is so overwhelmingly in favor of one party that they can cast a protest vote without it affecting the general election).

Personally, I'm more in favor of runoff elections when nobody wins an outright majority of the popular vote. That way, if my candidate from the third party I voted for gets second place but the first place major party candidate does not get the majority, he/she will face the major party candidate; if my candidate does not make it among the top two, I can go with my second choice. This system would reduce the fear of "splitting the vote" against someone you detest. If this system had been in place in 1992 (all votes staying the same), there would have been a runoff election in all but two states, because Clinton only won a majority in Arkansas and D.C.; Bush won an outright majority in none; Perot would have been in a runoff against Clinton in Maine and against Bush in Utah; and in the rest of the states there would have been a Clinton-Bush runoff.

(Figures from www.uselectionatlas.org).

I know that Georgia does that (Coverdell beat Fowler in a runoff election for U.S. Senate a few weeks after the general election in 1992).

Edited September 18, 2012 by Norseman82