I’m not talking about ones that had shared multilateral governance from the get-go, but ones that like the US have been mostly dominated by a two-party system but eventually got out of it and squeezed other ideologies in.
Does it ever happen historically?
Well, I’m not sure you would count Germany, but here’s what happened after WWII (heavily abridged):
After the experience of the multi-party system that was the Weimar Republic and what it led to, German founding fathers instituted the 5% hurdle - you can only be voted into national parliament if you have more than 5% of the national popular vote. The same rule applies respectively to statewide and communal elections. This keeps out fringe single-issue parties while allowing smaller parties with a broader program. From the beginning of the Republic, there were two major parties, SPD (social-democrat) and CDU (“Christian”, conservative), and one small party, the FDP (“Liberals”, although that word does not mean here what it means in the US - think socially liberal, fiscally conservative, individual freedom, low taxes). Never in the history of Germany was one of the major parties able to govern on their own, so there were always “coalitions” formed, usually one of SPD and CDU together with the FDP. There was a brief stint of a so-called “great coalition” of the two major parties that pretty much resulted in standstill, so it is not generally regarded as a good idea.
From the environmental movement of the 80s, the Green party evolved. They quickly gained momentum and were soon elected into state and national parliaments, as the peace and anti-nuclear movement was very strong at that time. After the “Wende”, the former socialist party of the GDR managed to transform into an at least superficially democratic party and has been around ever since in various permutations. The last incarnation is called “The Left” and has managed to garner support in both the former East and West. Three years ago, as all over Europe, the Pirate party was formed in response to the lack of answers to online-based problems from established parties. They have been elected into many state parliaments and stand a pretty good chance in next year’s national election. God help us.
So the German party system has, over the course of 30 years, moved from a 3 party system to a 6 (or more) party system, and as you can see, there is not one reason, but each party had their own time to develop and form their base. These bases and ideals have sometimes shifted over the years, for example the pacifistic Green party had to swallow the fact that their own Joschka Fischer, secretary of state from 1998 to 2005, played a big part in the NATO intervention in Kosovo, and nowadays, the Green party is less of a single-issue tree hugger, granola bunch, but rather the third biggest political force in Germany, with a broad range of policies.
It’s my understanding that even in countries that have large numbers of political parties, those parties tend to align into two major blocs that caucus together to form a government when that bloc comes into majority. The 5-6 major parties in France are loosely aligned into “rightist” and “leftist” blocs, the several dozen parties in Italy are aligned into a center-right bloc and a left bloc (though the current government is a nonpartisan unity government).
In New Zealand, the voting system was First-Past-The-Post until 1996, and Parliament was dominated by the two major parties (National and Labour). After a referendum, a Mixed-Member-Proportional system was introduced, with a 50% electoral/50% Party List and a 4% threshold.
Since 1996, there has never been a majority government - coalitions have to form, with smaller parties pledging support on supply in return for legislative support on other issues. It has worked pretty well, and people are more likely to vote for a smaller party.
Si
That was a citizen referendum at the national level?
Yes
There was an initial non-binding referendum to determine if there should be a referendum and what the opposing electoral method should be (MMP, STV, AV).
The second binding referendum was between MMP and FPP, and was held with national elections.
Si
It wasn’t citizen initiated. The Labour party in 1987 ran on a platform that they would introduce electoral reform if they won power and then they actually carried it out.
It would be interesting to know if either US major party could ever run on that as an election policy.
Well, firstly, we don’t “register to vote” in the way that Americans do. On my annual tax return, I declare that I am a Canadian citizen, over age 18. That simple X on the tax form puts me on the voters’ list. I do not have to declare a party affiliation. The tax form does not allow it.
In spite of the fact that Canadians can join political parties, but (as indicated above) the default seems to be that Canadians are non-partisan, there is no feeling that you owe your vote to anybody. You can vote for whoever you like: Conservative, Liberal, New Democrat, Communist, Marxist-Leninist, Green, Christian Freedom, Islamic, Independent, etc. etc. etc. It is my understanding that most Canadians do not belong to a political party, so they do not feel that they owe a vote to anybody. They look at the issues of the day, and vote for the person or party that best reflects their interests. That may be the party they have voted for, for years. Or it may be the one they have never voted for before. It is their free choice. We generally end up with three parties in the House, perhaps with some independents. But it doesn’t stop the others from trying and getting close in some cases. A good thing, IMHO; as it helps demonstrate that our votes for all parties are being counted.
I think it is the “non-partisan-by-default” that helps prevent a two-party system, as in the US. It is a secret ballot, and one can vote for whomever one chooses from a myriad of choices, without (real or imagined) pressure to vote the line one has declared upon registering to vote.
Yeah, that whole “registering for a party” has always baffled me a bit. In Germany, a party works like a club - you apply to get in, you pay membership dues, there’s a clear structure and hierarchy. Very few people actively belong to any party, because it takes a conscious effort and willingness to do actual politics.
Not to mention the fact that our “election season” doesn’t last for years on end, and that because the system is set up differently, you don’t need to be a millionaire to run for office. It allows for a much wider range of people to get involved in politics (as MPs) and allows for more flexibility as social opinions change.
It is a difficult thing. The Lib Dems in the UK ran with it as one of their major policies and then ended up as part of a coalition government when we had no overall winner in the last election. One of their demands for being part of the coalition was a referendum but, for various reasons depending on your point of view, the eventual referendum was on a much weaker concept and thus failed to capture the views of the electorate.
There’s a lot of information about how it went here: 2011 United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum - Wikipedia
IIRC the vast majority of the “no” campaign was based around the idea that someone could get the most votes and not win. This put a lot of people off, despite the FPTP system with parliamentary constituencies meaning that someone can lose the popular vote but still win the election (and vice versa, as actually happened in 1974).
You are not required to register with a party to vote in the United States. The fact that many (or most) do is irrelevant. The only drawback is that one cannot vote in primaries unless one is enrolled in that party.
Thank you, I am aware of that. I disagree that it is irrelevant. When you register as a member or supporter of a given party, you display your loyalty much more publicly. It’s similar to the discussion on the German church tax we had the other day (only in this case it’s exactly the other way around): of course no one is forced to identify with any religion, but the fact that the question is even asked is by no means insignificant.
Display loyalty to whom? Only the party knows you registered and as a result you wind up on mailing lists and phone lists to assist the party in asking for campaign donations.
So maybe your mailman knows you’re a register Democrat or Republican. Hardly a public oath of fealty.
Isn’t the party registration public record in the US?
This is the answer. When a simple plurality of votes is required, then a two-party system is the result. When you have other systems (proportional to the vote, or requiring a majority), then multi-party systems set up.
The reason is that any third party candidate has to defeat both candidates from the major parties. If either party addresses the issues that the third party raises, then voters to go that party. The third party can’t gain power, and thus falls apart.
If there’s a requirement for a majority, the third party can finish second, then get the votes of those who voted for the party that’s left out of the runoff, increasing its chances.
Similarly, proportional representation gives a party gaining 5% of the vote a legislative voice.
That seems like a good system to me. I don’t see the point of voter registration as we currently have it.
Nobody has to declare a party affiliation in the United States.
Are you suggesting that this is in contrast to something in the United States? I have never heard of anyone here who feels that they “owe” their votes to someone. And ticket-splitting and crossing lines is routines. There are a lot of rural areas in the United States in which registered Democrats haven’t voted for a Democratic presidential candidate in 40 years.
I don’t think this has any relevance to the U.S. experience. There is no imagined pressure to vote based on party registration.
Registering publicly with a party was one of the reforms introduced to make the primary election process open to the public. When political parties were allowed to keep their primaries as part of an entirely closed, private system, they were able to effectively disenfranchise large blocs of the electorate (particularly southern blacks).
When you register for a party in the United States, you are not becoming a “member” of the party, like you do in the German system. The only thing you get to do is vote in that party’s primary. And, as I said, it is not uncommon for a person registered with one party to vote for the other party’s candidate in the general election. It is also very easy to change your registration.
In fact, when I lived in Ohio, there was no party registration. If you showed up to vote in a primary election, they simply asked you which party’s primary you wanted to vote in. They had a record of which ballot you requested last time, but that had no bearing or influence or effect on which ballot you chose this time. The only restriction was that you could vote in only one party’s primary at a time.
There are 2 reasons -
First,if the country is proportional representation. If even 5% is the threshhold, it’s a lot easier to get a toe in parliament. This provides more easily for radical parties, since to appeal to the electorate you have to act tea-party like, be radical and refuse to compromise your principles. A certain number of like-minded people will agree with any viewpoint, and th more radical do not want to “give in”. The radical religious parties in Israel, for example, have held the government hostage to their demands since their handful of votes was needed to make a majority (and the principles of the main party were less rigid).
Second, in riding systems, it is easy for a local charismatic leader to get a few ridings in his area to vote for him. If he becomes a national force, and one of the main parties messes up badly, that could convert the small party into a big party. This happened when the conservatives messed up in Canada in 1993, and went from majority to 3 seats. the Reform party took over the role of conservative opposition and eventually absorbed the PC’s.
First past the post in a 3-way or 5-way race means the winner rarely gets 50% of the vote. France solves this with a 2-way run-off. The USA avoids this issue by having primaries, where a multi-way race is fought out well before the main event.
Once in place, a member of parliament spends a lot of time (we hope) addressing constituent issues, thus endearing himself to voters and helping ensure his re-election. Thus getting that toe-hold is the first step to building a bigger party.
Then there are regional parties like the Quebec separatists, who appeal to a a certain bloc of electorate. there is a dwindling number of French-Canadians who still think English Canada controls everything and the only solution is to leave. these sorts of parties have no hope of being a majority - but in a divided parliament could easily trade demands for support of the government, or block unpopular measures.
So generally - the more divisive battles that result in multiple parties elsewhere are probably solved in the USA during primaries. the obvious route for an ambitious politician in the USA is to take up with one of the two parties. OTOH, in places like Canada, a smaller group of party insiders have a lot more control over who gets the nominations.
Canada has FPTP. Do you consider Canada a two-party system? After the election of 2008, third and lower parties held 88 out of 308 seats in the Canadian House of Commons. After the recent election they were reduced to 42 out of 308 seats, but that is extremely misleading because a party which for decades had been a third or fourth party (the NDP) became the second party. Does this sound anything like the United States?
The UK has FPTP. Do you consider the UK a two-party system? Third and lower parties hold 85 out of 650 seats and the balance of power in the House of Commons, and one of the third parties is part of the coalition government. Again, does this sound anything like the US, in which third parties hold 0 out of 535 seats in Congress, and 0 out of several thousand seats in state legislatures?
The difference in the US is that we nominate candidates via state-run primaries. There is no incentive to form or vote for a third party, because anybody capable of attracting support can run in a primary and win a major party nomination.
… what is FPTP?