# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2016, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-parties-the-worst-mistake-america-ever-made/744183/61 "2016-01-31T01:49:55Z")
> [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](#): > > Canada and Great Britain have single-member districts and FPTP and have more than two viable political parties. > **[Duverger's law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law)** > > In political science, Duverger's law (/ˈduvərʒeɪ/ DOO-vər-zhay) holds that in political systems with single-member districts and the plurality voting system, (as in the U.S.), two main parties tend to emerge. In this case, votes for minor parties can potentially be regarded splitting votes away from the most similar major party. In contrast, systems with proportional representation usually have more representation of minor parties in government. > A two-party system is most common under plurality ... ---
**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 31, 2016, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-parties-the-worst-mistake-america-ever-made/744183/62 "2016-01-31T05:21:24Z")
It’s not enough simply to refer to this so-called “law”. If you believe that FPTP inevitably produces a two-and-only-two party system, as many Americans seem to believe, you have to explain why Duverger’s “Law” seems never to have been in force in Canada, India and the UK. For a detailed rebuttal from a pol-sci prof at the London School of Economics, see: [Duverger’s Law is a dead parrot. European political scientists need to recognize that plurality or majority voting has no tendency at all to produce two party politics](http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2012/06/20/duvergers-law-is-dead/) ---
**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:** [February 2, 2016, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-parties-the-worst-mistake-america-ever-made/744183/63 "2016-02-02T14:43:42Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Because judges are chosen by elected officials who have party affiliations and want to appoint judges who share the same party affiliation. Okay, cool. So why don’t they generally have political parties? Because they don’t actually need them. Judges can get appointed without a party affiliation. Happens most of the time. Why? Because legislators are perfectly capable of basing nominations on something more than party affiliation. The voters don’t punish them for choosing judges based on qualifications that aren’t political. In fact, they usually don’t like it when that happens. ---
**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:** [February 2, 2016, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-parties-the-worst-mistake-america-ever-made/744183/64 "2016-02-02T14:44:51Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > It’s not enough simply to refer to this so-called “law”. If you believe that FPTP inevitably produces a two-and-only-two party system, as many Americans seem to believe, you have to explain why Duverger’s “Law” seems never to have been in force in Canada, India and the UK. > > For a detailed rebuttal from a pol-sci prof at the London School of Economics, see: > > [Duverger’s Law is a dead parrot. European political scientists need to recognize that plurality or majority voting has no tendency at all to produce two party politics](http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2012/06/20/duvergers-law-is-dead/) I’d like to see an alternative explanation for the American two-party system then. What this link says is that Duverger’s law STILL seems to be working in the US, but other factors in other countries may be at play, such as regionalism. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2016, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-parties-the-worst-mistake-america-ever-made/744183/65 "2016-02-02T16:43:47Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > I’d like to see an alternative explanation for the American two-party system then. What this link says is that Duverger’s law STILL seems to be working in the US, but other factors in other countries may be at play, such as regionalism. Right- in the article, they point out that in places like the UK, you end up with regional 2 party systems that end up translating into a multiparty national system, that historically has still been a predominantly 2 party system. I get the impression, but don’t have any citations or anything, that the UK regions have a bit more political identity than the US ones; Southwest England doesn’t have any other organization to address its particular political needs and concerns, while areas of the US have their State governments to address a lot of that kind of thing, so there aren’t really “Southern” parties, or “Western” parties, or anything like that. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2016, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-parties-the-worst-mistake-america-ever-made/744183/66 "2016-02-02T22:48:51Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > If you believe that FPTP inevitably produces a two-and-only-two party system, as many Americans seem to believe, you have to explain why Duverger’s “Law” seems never to have been in force in Canada, India and the UK. Not a “two-and-only-two party system,” just a two-party system. There’s a huge difference there. If the Green Party suddenly started winning around 5 seats in the House of Representatives each election, the US would still have a two-party system. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2016, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-parties-the-worst-mistake-america-ever-made/744183/67 "2016-02-02T23:59:31Z")
Look around the world: Has any democracy managed to get by without political parties? They just seem to come with the territory. That might not have been obvious in 1789, but it is now. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2016, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-parties-the-worst-mistake-america-ever-made/744183/68 "2016-02-03T00:26:40Z")
> [@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. The USA is not a democracy nor should it be. ---
**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:** [February 3, 2016, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-parties-the-worst-mistake-america-ever-made/744183/69 "2016-02-03T13:01:39Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > Not a “two-and-only-two party system,” just a two-party system. There’s a huge difference there. If the Green Party suddenly started winning around 5 seats in the House of Representatives each election, the US would still have a two-party system. Agreed, there is a major difference between a duopoly (two-and-only-two parties) and a multi-party system with two dominant parties. However, what I’m responding to is the statement I’ve frequently seen here and from other American sources is that the reason the US has two and only two parties is because of FPTP. If FPTP and single member constituencies are what create a two-and-only-two party system, then we should find two-and-and-only-two in other countries that use FPTP/single member. But we don’t see that elsewhere, at least not in the examples I’ve given. Therefore, there must be other causes for the unusual US duopoly. I’m trying to think of another democratic country which has a duopoly like the US model. Is there one? ---
**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:** [February 3, 2016, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-parties-the-worst-mistake-america-ever-made/744183/70 "2016-02-03T14:30:19Z")
> [@bump](#): > > Right- in the article, they point out that in places like the UK, you end up with regional 2 party systems that end up translating into a multiparty national system, that historically has still been a predominantly 2 party system. > > I get the impression, but don’t have any citations or anything, that the UK regions have a bit more political identity than the US ones; Southwest England doesn’t have any other organization to address its particular political needs and concerns, while areas of the US have their State governments to address a lot of that kind of thing, so there aren’t really “Southern” parties, or “Western” parties, or anything like that. Exactly - I think that explains it. The US simply doesn’t have regional parties. Even when it has had parties dominating a region, they have managed to stay linked, at least in name, with the same parties in other regions. I’m thinking of the Democrats in the South who were conservative and segregationist yet coexisted with other more liberal Democrats in the rest of the country. So the next question is why did they stick together? ---
**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:** [February 3, 2016, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-parties-the-worst-mistake-america-ever-made/744183/71 "2016-02-03T14:31:19Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > The USA is not a democracy nor should it be. Yeah, thanks for your contribution to the discussion. ---
**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:** [February 3, 2016, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-parties-the-worst-mistake-america-ever-made/744183/72 "2016-02-03T14:33:11Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Look around the world: Has any democracy managed to get by without political parties? They just seem to come with the territory. That might not have been obvious in 1789, but it is now. Thanks for getting the discussion back on track - we diverged from talking about parties to talking about two-party systems. Parties are a natural and normal phenomena. People who agree are going to line up. That’s the very essence of voting for candidates - everyone who supports a particular candidate is a group that can constitute a party. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2016, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-parties-the-worst-mistake-america-ever-made/744183/73 "2016-02-03T15:22:50Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > The USA is not a democracy nor should it be. The USA is a democratic republic. As opposed to say, an aristocratic republic, like the old Roman Republic or Venetian Republic. IME, anyone who says “The U.S. is a republic, not a democracy,” is not arguing but ranting/whining. What they usually actually mean by it, when they mean anything, is, “The U.S. is a federal state, not a unitary state” – which is true, but has nothing to do with any “republic”/“democracy” distinction. Or sometimes they mean it is a rule-of-law republic with constitutional checks and balances instead of the 51% immediately getting whatever they want – which, likewise. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2016, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-parties-the-worst-mistake-america-ever-made/744183/74 "2016-02-03T16:01:26Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > I sympathize. But the problem is, how do you prevent people from forming political parties without severely limiting their freedom? Exactly. It’s not like people someday woke up and got the idea of forming political parties as they exist today - it was a long process, every step of which made absolute sense in terms of efficiency of broadcasting one’s ideas and winning votes. The first organized parties were nothing but machines designed to win elections (e.g. the German SPD, the “electoral Panzer” as my teacher dubbed it). The Founders were notoriously appalled at the idea of parties (and were this close to banning them constitutionally), but that’s because they were appalled at the idea of common people voting in the first place. Once you extend the vote to the entirety of the population (which is desirable, I shan’t bother to explain why. Ask your wife, she knows :p), parties form organically if only for ease of communication & identification purposes. The average lower/middle-class Joe, being not a quasi-aristocrat free to live a life of leisure and/or philosophickal contemplation, doesn’t have the time to participate in day-long debates over political minutiae. So he has to delegate those to a handful of party leaders, who in turn are moved to simplify or compromise with their ideas to reach the most voters, etc… ---
**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:** [February 3, 2016, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-parties-the-worst-mistake-america-ever-made/744183/75 "2016-02-03T19:06:05Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > So the next question is why did they stick together? Because to win the presidency, you need a broad-based national party. That is different from the situation in Canada and Britain, where population imbalances mean you can form government with support drawn primarily from one or two regions. ---
**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:** [February 3, 2016, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-parties-the-worst-mistake-america-ever-made/744183/76 "2016-02-03T20:12:17Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > The Founders were notoriously appalled at the idea of parties (and were this close to banning them constitutionally), but that’s because they were appalled at the idea of common people voting in the first place. Not a fair statement at all. Of the relatively small number of nations that conducted elections in the 1780’s, the US had by far the widest suffrage in the world. Property qualifications in most states were quite modest. > [@Simplicio](#): > > The British Parliament had Tories and Whigs, the Continental Congress had had Federalists and anti-Federalists. The (Virginia) House of Burgesses had had Aristocratic and Yeoman factions, and I’m sure the other State legislatures ended up with similar systems. And, I would add, experience with these party systems was not entirely salutary, which is one reason why so many Founders disliked it. The Eighteenth Century parties arose in legislatures dominated by a non-elected executive–the King in Great Britain, Royal Governors in the colonies. Partisan activity involved the King trying to cobble together a “king’s party” or “court faction” to get his way in the legislature, by distributing favors and patronage. It was inherently corrupting. And the opposition, frozen out of power, wasn’t always loyal, as when excluded Tories backed the Jacobite Rebellion in England and Scotland in 1745. But ultimately I think there is truth in this sentiment: > [@Simplicio](#): > > Saying you’re in it for your common good (“a uniter, not a divider”) while your enemy is a partisan threatening to tear the country apart (“Splitter!!”) was as effective a political strategy then as now). ---
**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:** [February 3, 2016, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-parties-the-worst-mistake-america-ever-made/744183/77 "2016-02-03T20:27:25Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Because to win the presidency, you need a broad-based national party. > > That is different from the situation in Canada and Britain, where population imbalances mean you can form government with support drawn primarily from one or two regions. That’s true. I thought of that as a possibility. Perhaps our once-every-four-years, one-office election holds our parties together nationally. ---
**Author:** ![SCAdian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scadian/32/3292_2.png) [@SCAdian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SCAdian)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2016, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-parties-the-worst-mistake-america-ever-made/744183/78 "2016-02-03T21:37:24Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > Get rid of our wildly gerrymandered Senate (same representation for enormous states and tiny ones), and we’d actually have a sensible form of government. “Gerrymandered”? What gives you that idea? ---
**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:** [February 4, 2016, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-parties-the-worst-mistake-america-ever-made/744183/79 "2016-02-04T13:19:23Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > The Founders were notoriously appalled at the idea of parties (and were this close to banning them constitutionally), … I’ve never heard about a proposed ban before. Could you elaborate? ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-parties-the-worst-mistake-america-ever-made/744183/80 "2016-02-04T15:47:47Z")
> [@SCAdian](#): > > “Gerrymandered”? What gives you that idea? He’s sort of ignorant, and doesn’t realize that the US isn’t a straight popular democracy, but rather a federal republic. And as a federal republic with a bicameral legislature, we have an upper house (the Senate) where the states themselves are equally represented, and a lower house (the House of Representatives) where the people are represented. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-parties-the-worst-mistake-america-ever-made/744183.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-parties-the-worst-mistake-america-ever-made/744183.md?page=5)