Why are there only two main political parties in the US - i.e. The Democrats and The Republicans. I do not want a discussion of the politics of either party, but I’d like to know why there are only two. Why can’t someone set up a third party?
Please enlighten me.
Thanx all.
They can and do. There are many other parties like liberterians, greens, reform, communists, socialists, socialist workers, ect. ect. The republican party was once a “third” party itself, until it rose to major party status in the late 1860’s replacing the whigs. The fact that we have single member winner take all disticts in congress and elsewhere seems to favor only having two major parties.
Well, you can. For that matter, there are a lot of third parties. Problem is, they have trouble getting the support (popular and financial) to compete with the two dominant parties.
Democrats and Republicans aren’t the only parties that have been major players in US history, by the way. The relatively short-lived Federalist and Whig parties come to mind.
I meant the early 1860’s
Here’s an article: Third Parties Score Limited Success in U.S., giving a little of the history behind the system.
The reasons for this date very far back in US history, probably before the time of the Whigs. Several other partys have actually existed, i.e. the Green Party, Ross Perot’s Independent party, and various other fringe groups. All of these groups, no matter how outrageous, I believe are essential to the common man’s inclusion in our nations government. I don’t pretend to know anything about politics, but I can tell you why there are only two major partys. In order to garner power, people must ally themselves with other like-minded people and form “teams”. This establishes a “us versus you” mentality, and generates supporters who may not have any idea what the views or issues of either party might be, but none the less, “hate those other guys”. The history of the parties formations should be cautionary IMHO, because nowadays people decide to align themselves with one or the other party. If you ask me, anyone that says that they subscribe to all of the beliefs that a certain party holds, is nothing but a mindless sheep. People should be elected into office because of their qualifications, not because of their political affiliations. Using our current system, we are assured of having the best possible liars firmly in control of our country within a few years. Go party loyalty!
Thanks all - ** Ice Wolf ** - your link was v. helpful.
Thanks again.
I consider myself enlightened.
Actually, there are plenty of third parties, all over the spectrum. It’s just that none of them actually have any chance of winning a position of national importance. Not at this juncture, anyway.
Actually, it’s a function of the electorial system used in the US (and in the UK).
The US uses a plurality sistem – the party with the most votes wins. The always leads to two major parties. A third party has to beat the candidates of the other two parties from the start. This is difficult because the two established parties have more money, and a large base of loyal followers. In addition, the main parties tend to be in the middle, and can shift to take on any important issues raised by a third party.
In countries where a majority is required, you have more parties, simply because a third party can come in second during the general election, and be better positioned for the runoff as voters who favor party A (which finished third in the first round) might never vote for party B (which finished first).
It requires massive social change to make a third party one of the two major parties. It also requires that the two major parties don’t respond to this change. But once a third party gives them a scare, they tend to co-opt its platform.
Or an alternative view: from outside the US, people tend to perceive Democrat and Republican as right-wing and slightly-more-right-wing. The only major gap for a new party whose catchment doesn’t overlap is at the left, and the US has a historically-based horror of that.
People don’t view the Democrats as leftist in other countries? HUH?
Former Pro-Wrestler and action movie star Jesse Ventura is a successful third party Governor of Minnesota.
The U.S. isn’t alone in this regard. Britain has long had, essentially, a two party system. The only real change over the past 300 years is that the two parties USED to be the Tories and the Liberals, while today it’s the Tories and the Labour Party.
It’s difficult to get a new political party started, and more difficult to make it successful. Most of the time, if a new party shows some sign of strength, one of the two established parties will embrace the new party’s pet issues. Once that happens, the new party is likely to wither and die.
Balthisar, in most of the world left-wing means socialist. Yes, the Democrats are to the left of the Republicans, but if you moved them to somewhere like Canada or anywhere in Europe, their platforms would have they coming across as a moderate right-wing party.
The Progressive Conservative party in Canada or the Christian Democratic Party in Germany would serve as good analouges to Democratic policy in the U.S., and both are to the right of the currently ruling parties in those countries.
I know next to nothing about politics, but I’ve always gotten the impression that, on average, Europe and the rest of the Americas are left of the USA, while Africa, the Middle East, and most of Asia are right of the USA. Am I way off base here? Even as an extremely general trend?
Bear in mind that the Green Party cost Al Gore the presidency in 2000, so third parties are not irrelevant in the US.
Countries with parliamentary forms of government also support the formation of fringe parties. All kinds of groups with narrow or extreme interests can find enough votes to get a voice in the government. So when Guy like Henri Le Pen can get 15 or 20 percent of the votes he can gain some power in France, but that total would do him no good at all in the US. Winner takes all.
Same thing happened in the US - we started out with Democratic-Republicans and Federalists.
I’ve heard it claimed that in represenative democracies in general, you always tend to converge towards two major parties. One completely dominant party and a multiplicity of parties aren’t stable configurations - if you have a whole bunch of parties, two things happen:
1 - the strongest party among groups with similar views tends to pick up clout, and the others wither away.
2 - at some point, the political scene is dominated by only one major issue, and nobody cares about anything else. The existing parties form coalitions on the two sides of the issue, and the coalitions tend to rapidly merge into single parties.
If you reach a point where you effectively have ONE party, the members will find something to disagree about and split into two parties. One of the camps will pick up the old members of no longer viable parties in this case.
For example, if the Democrats continued to disintegrate in this country, until Republicans held absolutely huge majorities, there would almost certainly be a split in the Republican party, probably into an ideologically right-wing camp, and a more centrist group, which would form a new party and try to draw in the former Democrats as members. You could also see a party renegade like John McCain sieze the opportunity.