Why are there only two political parties of any consequence in the US? How can we have 2 groups that disagree on every issue? You’d think the Dems and Reps would agree on something. Just because Dems disagree with Reps about abortion, why do they also have to disagree on a tax plan? Shouldn’t there be theoretical 3rd, 4th parties that agree with the Dems sometimes, and the Reps sometimes, and each other sometimes. Is it simply a distinction between being liberal and conservative? Can’t someone be liberal about some issues and conservative about others? Seems like there should be more overlap to me.
There are a lot more parties than 2, but you have to pay to play.
Libertarians, not a very rich org., are socially liberal and fiscally conservative, they have been in each of the last 4 elections (or more, not sure), and on the ballot in all 50 states for the last 3 (at least, again not sure).
Then there’s Ross Perot, who got the bucks and paid his way into the debates, which the Libertarians are constantly shut out of.
But, more importantly, there’s the old arguments about the problems of more than 2 candidates for the reasons that arose during Clinton/Bush/Perot: if Clinton won with a split of 40/30/30, then he became President despite the fact that a clear majority voted for someone else.
Stated more clearly, the two-party system was supposed to ensure that the winner would have won a true majority: if there are only two parties, was the thinking, then by definition the winner would be the one to get more than half the votes.
Kind of a built-in runoff.
There have been many third parties in US history, probably so many that they can be called fourth, fifth, and sixth parties at times.
A third party comes in to being because:
- There is an issue that causes a group to split off from one of the two established parties (Democrats and slavery, 1860; Republicans and Progressives, 1912; Democrats and civil/states rights, 1948; Republicans and social conservatism, 1980)
- You get a party with a completely different view of politics, like today’s Libertarians and Greens.
- You get a guy with a whole ton of money like Ross Perot.
No one has ever been able to use one of this methods to get to be president. There are too many hurdles to clear.
Campaign finance reform and abortion are issues that may create some fissures in either of the two big parties, especially among Nov. 7’s loser.
Well, you’re making several fallacious assumptions, and I think pointing out the fallacies of those assumptions will help show you why there only tends to be two major parties.
First: Just because “the parties” disagree on everything does not mean individual members of the parties toe the line and disagree upon everything. There are pro-choice Republicans, pro-life Democrats, free trade Democrats and protectionist Republicans, etc., etc., etc. Joining a party or running as a member of that party does not mean that one absolutely agrees with every position that party ‘holds’; it generally just means general agreement with the party (or, in some cases, acknowledgement that no Republican could ever be elected in your district, so you’ll run as a Democrat even if you make Pat Robertson look like a flaming liberal.)
However, even within each party, there are major factions and differences. The Democrats tend to fall into “liberal” and “conservative” groups; the Republicans into “social conservative/Religious Right” and “fiscal conservative/deficit hawk” groups.
Second: That the parties oppose each other upon every issue. It just depends upon how you define “issue”, and generally what people define “issue” as is “some matter where the Democrats and Republicans disagree”, which makes it hard for there to be any issues upon which both parties agree.
However, neither party is calling for an end to Social Security or Medicare. But the Libertarians are. Neither party is calling for abandonment of the WTO, but the Green party is. Neither party is calling for erecting trade barriers, but the Reform party is. Are these ‘issues’? If so, then the major parties do agree with them.
So what you have is not two monolithic entities which antithesize each other like yin and yang, with absolute doctrinaire rigidity upon both sides. What you have is two generally loose groupings of people based upon what issues they personally feel are important, and which party they feel will better represent their stands on those issues.
The only reason, then, to start a new party is if you feel that neither party will represent your issues well. And this has happened plenty of times in the past. But generally, once a third party shows up with a coherent philosophy and a consistent showing in the polls, one of the two major parties makes moves to absorb the new party. Thus, the “Free Soil” anti-slavery party of the 1850’s was merged with the remaining Whigs to form the new Republican party; the Democrats rejuvenated their party in the late 19th century and early 20th by picking up disaffected Progressive Republicans and absoring the Populist platform en toto; the Dixiecrats of the '50’s and '60’s found a new home with the Republicans. Had the Reform party of the '90’s come up with a more coherent agenda than “we really like Ross Perot”, likely one of the two major parties would have moved to pick up pieces of their agenda.
By that same token- should Nader do extremely well in the coming election, one should expect that the Democratic party will begin moving back towards the left in order to gain their support for future elections.
I’ve heard the point made that, over time, represenative democracies tend to converge to two party systems. The argument makes sense to me, and goes something like this:
If you have a multiplicity of parties, coalitions will be formed as groups try to gain a majority. Coalitions tend to merge into a single party. At a point where you are concerned with one big, defining issue, this process is accelerated, and you wind up with two defacto parties on the two sides of the issue.
If one party comes to dominate, so that there is no serious opposition from outside, that party will find something to disagree over, and split into two.
The two party system is a direct consequence of the first-past-the-post election system. The US and UK have this kind of election system and so have only two main parties each. A vote for the Reform, Green and other small parties is at best a protest vote but is otherwise a wasted vote. Except for occasional flukes like Jesse Ventura, they will not get their candidates in office. And those that do get into office will have little power because they have no others in their party in office.
In countries with proportional election systems (e.g. France and Germany), where legislative seats are apportioned by the fraction of votes the party got, multiple small parties abound. Yes, they form coalitions with larger parties, but they rarely merge with those larger parties. Small parties can often use the threat of dropping out of the coalition to get their issues addressed.
As you can see, there are more than 2 parties.
My Father has run for the State Senate as an Independant, as well.
Now, was there water in that pool when you jumped in, high-diver? 
Here in Canada, we have
Liberals
Alliance
Conservatives
NDP
Bloc Quebecois
All of which have “official party status” meaning they have neough seats in the parliment (10?) to be considered a party. There are countless others too.
I guess the difference is our PM is not elected by the people. We elect a representative in each constituency, and the leader of the party with the most representatives is the Prime Minister.
My point is, in the US, you have candidates trying to appeal to ALL the people, so its hard to really say any radically different ideas without losing a lot of popularity.
While in Canada, we have regional parties: Alliance has the West, Liberals have Ontatio, Bloc Quebecois has (guess), and NDP has Atlantic Canada. So each party hasd enough support to be elected into parliment.