# Are political parties the worst mistake America ever made? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 25, 2016, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-parties-the-worst-mistake-america-ever-made/744183 "2016-01-25T16:15:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2016, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-parties-the-worst-mistake-america-ever-made/744183/41 "2016-01-26T15:47:23Z")
> [@penultima\_thule](#): > > My point is that there are HoR races where the winner gets less than 20% of the eligible vote. Nope. They get more than 50% of the votes case. Those who don’t vote aren’t voters. Low turnout may be a problem, but I’m not sure how it matters here, unless you’re claiming that it is caused by the two-party system. ---
**Author:** ![penultima\_thule](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/penultima_thule/32/3833_2.png) [@penultima\_thule](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/penultima_thule)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2016, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-parties-the-worst-mistake-america-ever-made/744183/42 "2016-01-27T12:27:43Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > This is about parties, not voting participation. Are you arguing that parties cause most voters not to vote? If 60% of the US eligible voters don’t vote and the 40% who do are split fairly evenly between two well established and well funded political machines there isn’t a lot of room for a third or fourth party. Parties don’t cause people not to vote, but in the US parties aren’t concerned, arguably their success is dependent on people not voting. US politics is vast amounts of money on media buys. Quite rationally it’s spent with the expectation of influence. Nobody sane spends those sorts of amounts on “I just got into the race to give some speeches and keep them honest”. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2016, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-parties-the-worst-mistake-america-ever-made/744183/43 "2016-01-27T14:40:13Z")
> [@penultima\_thule](#): > > If 60% of the US eligible voters don’t vote and the 40% who do are split fairly evenly between two well established and well funded political machines there isn’t a lot of room for a third or fourth party. The non-voters are irrelevant, by choice. The voters can simply choose to vote for a different party if one is presented to them. They aren’t bound by their past votes to continue to support a certain party. The reason there is no room for a third party is that enough voters vote strategically to know that voting for a third party is a wasted vote. Only the leading two usually have a chance to win, since other voters also vote strategically and will support someone who has a chance. > [@](#): > > Parties don’t cause people not to vote, but in the US parties aren’t concerned, arguably their success is dependent on people not voting. That doesn’t make sense. A party can be just as successful by getting more people to vote for it as getting fewer people to vote for the other party. > [@](#): > > US politics is vast amounts of money on media buys. Quite rationally it’s spent with the expectation of influence. Nobody sane spends those sorts of amounts on “I just got into the race to give some speeches and keep them honest”. Of course not. They spend it so that they can help themselves, or a candidate they support, win election. And? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2016, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-parties-the-worst-mistake-america-ever-made/744183/44 "2016-01-27T16:40:35Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > We already have public disclosure of all donations made to candidates and parties. You can go look them up on [fec.gov](http://fec.gov). But there’s still plenty of [Dark](http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Money-History-Billionaires-Radical/dp/0307970655) [Money](http://www.salon.com/2016/01/25/they_see_themselves_as_heroes_instead_people_are_saying_theyre_manipulating_american_politics_jane_mayer_on_the_method_behind_the_koch_brothers_brilliant_madness/). **Click Those Links!** ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2016, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-parties-the-worst-mistake-america-ever-made/744183/45 "2016-01-27T17:04:44Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > But there’s still plenty of [Dark](http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Money-History-Billionaires-Radical/dp/0307970655) [Money](http://www.salon.com/2016/01/25/they_see_themselves_as_heroes_instead_people_are_saying_theyre_manipulating_american_politics_jane_mayer_on_the_method_behind_the_koch_brothers_brilliant_madness/). > > **Click Those Links!** So what? ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2016, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-parties-the-worst-mistake-america-ever-made/744183/46 "2016-01-29T01:43:23Z")
> [@Chihuahua](#): > > A few points: > > 1. The Supreme Court justices may not have parties, but they absolutely\*\* do\*\* have party allegiances. They are appointed by the President on the understanding that they will support that party’s policies in the future. This is why it’s always such a big deal when one of them retires, because whichever party is in power gets to stock the bench with a someone who will vote for their side for decades to come. Justices consistently and predictably vote along party lines. > > 2. If parties were abolished, what would take their place? Politicians naturally have shared interests and ideologies. They would very rapidly identify who holds a certain ideology and band together in voting blocs. Even if forbidden from actually identifying as a “party,” they would undoubtedly create alliances and confederations that serve the exact same purpose. I agree with the above. > [@](#): > > 1. The two party system has many disadvantages, but it also keeps things remarkably stable. For example: If you have two parties, the winner of the election can at least claim that 51% of the voters supported them. I know the situation is more complicated than that, but stick with me. \*\*If you have a country with many competing parties, like 5 or 6 or more, then it might so happen that a candidate with only 20% of the votes wins. This creates an extremely chaotic and unpredictable situation where a person with only marginal support can still win it all… And it actually might exacerbate the problem of candidates pandering to extremists. > \*\*[emph. added] I think this is backwards. We’ve seen “majority of the majority (of the majority of the majority)” politics in recent decades. The two-party system makes it undesired for the caucus to split, so legislators hang together with the fanatics in their own party against their own better judgment. A system with many parties and sub-parties, and more easily broken coalitions, might resist the wackies better. > [@](#): > > 1. Parties can serve an important function as gatekeepers. This is about to become extremely important WRT to people like Trump and Carson. In an ideal world, everyone would have equal chance to become President and the decision would be made based on the power of their arguments. However, we live in a world where fascist, racists, and lunatics are able to grab the spotlight and, inexplicably, command the attention of voters. If the party itself can serve as gatekeepers and prevent a wacko candidate from rising to power (see point 3, above) then the two-party system might actually serve an important safety function. Whether this theory works in real life is about to be tested. Apparently the parties haven’t done all that much managing of candidates for the last 25 years, except for all the pledges on the GOP side. There are no smoke-filled rooms; there are instead preachers (of more than one kind) demanding compliance. When the gatekeeping is done by anti-tax absolutists and other fanatics, the real risk is that at least one party becomes beholden to crazy ideas and mostly useless. The answer has to be _more_ parties, and a system that lets coalitions break up. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2016, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-parties-the-worst-mistake-america-ever-made/744183/47 "2016-01-29T14:15:29Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > I think this is backwards. We’ve seen “majority of the majority (of the majority of the majority)” politics in recent decades. The two-party system makes it undesired for the caucus to split, so legislators hang together with the fanatics in their own party against their own better judgment. But if we had multiple parties, and one candidate could win with just 20% of the vote, that candidate could be one of the fanatics! And he/she would have absolutely no reason to share power or compromise with the moderates, because they have no leverage. Moderates “hanging together” with radicals is what controls the radicals. If the radicals get too strong, middle-of-the-road voters will simply go to the other party, and the radicals will lose. ---
**Author:** ![Chihuahua](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/dec6dc/32.png) [@Chihuahua](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chihuahua)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2016, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-parties-the-worst-mistake-america-ever-made/744183/48 "2016-01-29T17:51:09Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > I think this is backwards. We’ve seen “majority of the majority (of the majority of the majority)” politics in recent decades. The two-party system makes it undesired for the caucus to split, so legislators hang together with the fanatics in their own party against their own better judgment. A system with many parties and sub-parties, and more easily broken coalitions, might resist the wackies better. The point I’m trying to make is mathematical. A simplified example: If there are two possible outcomes, then the winner must have 51% of the votes. If there are five possible outcomes, then it is possible for a winner to succeed with 21% of the votes. In a two party system, 49% of the population can oppose a candidate and still fail to carry the election. In a five-party example, that means that 79% of the population _opposed_ the candidate, but they won anyway, and therefore may or may not represent what the majority actually wants. This is an extremely common effect and reason independent candidates are often called “spoilers.” Imagine a scenario in which 40% of voters support Policy A and 60% support Policy B. In any normal election, this would result in Policy B winning. However, if two candidates participate in the election and both adhere to Policy B (or at least, offer two very similar platforms) then the vote might end up being split 40/30/30. Therefore, the candidate that supports Policy A wins the election despite the fact that most voters did not support their policy. The more candidates you add to a system, the more chaotic the system becomes and the easier it is for a non-majority platform or party to win the election. This especially benefits the lunatic fringe, because of the effect of the Median Voter Theorem. Multiple candidates clustered around the center of the political spectrum would split the centrist votes, while one candidate at the extreme end might capture a larger portion of the votes. Your claim, if I understand it correctly, is that the other members of the party hang onto the lunatic fringe elements because they want those votes from the extreme end of the spectrum. That might be a valid strategy for managing the problem, but that also kind of proves my point. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2016, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-parties-the-worst-mistake-america-ever-made/744183/49 "2016-01-29T18:40:16Z")
> [@Chihuahua](#): > > The point I’m trying to make is mathematical. A simplified example: > > If there are two possible outcomes, then the winner must have 51% of the votes. > If there are five possible outcomes, then it is possible for a winner to succeed with 21% of the votes. In a two party system, 49% of the population can oppose a candidate and still fail to carry the election. In a five-party example, that means that 79% of the population _opposed_ the candidate, but they won anyway, and therefore may or may not represent what the majority actually wants. > > This is an extremely common effect and reason independent candidates are often called “spoilers.” Imagine a scenario in which 40% of voters support Policy A and 60% support Policy B. In any normal election, this would result in Policy B winning. However, if two candidates participate in the election and both adhere to Policy B (or at least, offer two very similar platforms) then the vote might end up being split 40/30/30. Therefore, the candidate that supports Policy A wins the election despite the fact that most voters did not support their policy. > > The more candidates you add to a system, the more chaotic the system becomes and the easier it is for a non-majority platform or party to win the election. This especially benefits the lunatic fringe, because of the effect of the Median Voter Theorem. Multiple candidates clustered around the center of the political spectrum would split the centrist votes, while one candidate at the extreme end might capture a larger portion of the votes. And…the parties know this. They are trying to win by attracting as many votes as possible. This forces other parties to do the same. This process leads to the existence of just two parties, because two are the only with a shot at winning. That is why we have two parties. Whenever a third party has emerged, it has either died off quickly–because one of the big two coopted its ideas and therefore its voters–or it became one of the big two by killing off a previous one by taking all its voters. The last time the latter happened was when the Republicans came along and replaced the Whig party, which was falling apart. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2016, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-parties-the-worst-mistake-america-ever-made/744183/50 "2016-01-29T18:52:22Z")
How would you eliminate political parties anyways? How would you choose a nominee for elected office? First come first serve? ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2016, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-parties-the-worst-mistake-america-ever-made/744183/51 "2016-01-29T20:14:16Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > If that were so, other countries with First-past-the-post systems would have two party systems. But they don’t. Canada, Britain, India and the Philippines all have FPFT and multi-party systems. > > It’s only the US that has the duopoly. Pointing to FPTP is not an answer. It’s not so much FPTP in itself, but (IMO) a product of single member districts combined with FPTP. (what **John Mace** said, but a little more detailed. There’s nothing inherent (i.e. in the Constitution) about the US system that requires political parties- in theory, we could return 535 independent congressmen and even elect independent Presidents and Vice Presidents, and the system would function without a hitch. If political parties are the problem, the US/British systems are probably the closest to ideal for that reason; proportional representation systems actually institutionalize the presence of political parties in the system itself. And, FWIW, the fact that states are all equally represented in the Senate is a feature, not a bug. It’s a counterbalance against big states like Florida, Texas, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania and California (those 6 combined are 40% of the population) running roughshod over the rest of the country. ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2016, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-parties-the-worst-mistake-america-ever-made/744183/52 "2016-01-29T20:32:07Z")
> [@bump](#): > > It’s not so much FPTP in itself, but (IMO) a product of single member districts combined with FPTP. Canada and Great Britain have single-member districts and FPTP and have more than two viable political parties. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-parties-the-worst-mistake-america-ever-made/744183/53 "2016-01-30T07:19:44Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > But if we had multiple parties, and one candidate could win with just 20% of the vote, that candidate could be one of the fanatics! And he/she would have absolutely no reason to share power or compromise with the moderates, because they have no leverage. Well, yeah, if you’re using a winner-take-all plurality election. Why don’t you have runoffs? ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 7:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-parties-the-worst-mistake-america-ever-made/744183/54 "2016-01-30T07:23:49Z")
> [@bump](#): > > And, FWIW, the fact that states are all equally represented in the Senate is a feature, not a bug. It’s a counterbalance against big states like Florida, Texas, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania and California (those 6 combined are 40% of the population) running roughshod over the rest of the country. Yes, because not only are the populations within each of those six states incredibly monolithic, they are all also incredibly similar to each other. [/sarcasm] ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-parties-the-worst-mistake-america-ever-made/744183/55 "2016-01-30T12:06:07Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > If that was true then there would only be a few thousand people in this country who had a political party. But the reality is that people can be a part of a political party without running for office themselves. You didn’t get my comment. The SCOTUS has no parties because it isn’t elected, and HAS no voters. The elected parts of government have parties because they are elected, and they are elected by people who affiliate with parties. Why would a court need political parties? ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 12:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-parties-the-worst-mistake-america-ever-made/744183/56 "2016-01-30T12:07:31Z")
> [@bump](#): > > And, FWIW, the fact that states are all equally represented in the Senate is a feature, not a bug. It’s a counterbalance against big states like Florida, Texas, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania and California (those 6 combined are 40% of the population) running roughshod over the rest of the country. But why shouldn’t they? They have more people - shouldn’t they have more say in how the country is run in a democracy? That’s how it works in the House. I know this is what the states were thinking when they wrote the Constitution. Perhaps it’s out of date today. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-parties-the-worst-mistake-america-ever-made/744183/57 "2016-01-30T12:09:47Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Well, yeah, if you’re using a winner-take-all plurality election. Why don’t you have runoffs? I’m describing the reason parties exist in our current election system. If we change that system, the dynamics might indeed be different, possibly for the better. We do have runoffs in a few elections. In Louisiana, for example, everyone is on the ballot, even candidates from the same party, and then if one gets 50%, he/she wins, if not, there’s a runoff between the top two vote-getters, and they may be from the same party. No primaries. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-parties-the-worst-mistake-america-ever-made/744183/58 "2016-01-30T13:44:24Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > You didn’t get my comment. The SCOTUS has no parties because it isn’t elected, and HAS no voters. The elected parts of government have parties because they are elected, and they are elected by people who affiliate with parties. > > Why would a court need political parties? Because judges are chosen by elected officials who have party affiliations and want to appoint judges who share the same party affiliation. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-parties-the-worst-mistake-america-ever-made/744183/59 "2016-01-30T14:23:59Z")
> [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](#): > > Canada and Great Britain have single-member districts and FPTP and have more than two viable political parties. As does India, as far as I can tell from wiki: single-member districts and FPTP. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-parties-the-worst-mistake-america-ever-made/744183/60 "2016-01-30T18:44:29Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > But why shouldn’t they? They have more people - shouldn’t they have more say in how the country is run in a democracy? That’s how it works in the House. > > I know this is what the states were thinking when they wrote the Constitution. Perhaps it’s out of date today. Keep in mind that when the Constitution was drawn up, the very largest state, New York, was only six times the size of the smallest state, Rhode Island. Today, the twelve largest states account for around 85% of the population. They certainly never imagined just how large the US would become or just how much larger many US states would become. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-parties-the-worst-mistake-america-ever-made/744183.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-parties-the-worst-mistake-america-ever-made/744183.md?page=4)