Political parties are a natural feature of democracies, and they arise even after attempts to get rid of them. A large democratic society is going to have parties whether anyone wants them or not. And much as people like to gripe about parties, it actually is beneficial to voters that there’s an easily-accessible and easily-understood heuristic for the general ideological bent of a politician; the actions taken by elected officials are how we’re represented.
Another thing that happens is that the parties themselves will shift their positions around as time passes.
The ACA repeal vote that’s been mentioned a few times in this thread is instructive about how party leaders deal with recalcitrant members. Repealing “Obamacare” was an enormous political priority for Republicans – they had vilified it for years and promised that they would do so at the first opportunity. But once they had consolidated control of government after the 2016 election, they struggled to get a majority to agree what form an ACA repeal bill should take – e.g. “repeal and replace” vs. a straight repeal.
McCain often gets described as the decisive vote that blocked repeal in the Senate, but Republicans had a 52-48 margin in the Senate at that time. It took Murkowski and Collins also voting no (due to then-VP Pence’s tie breaker) for the bill to fail.
McCain was beyond any consequences at that point, but McConnell could have gone after Collins and Murkowski for sinking Republicans’ biggest political priority. But he didn’t, for a few reasons. The two had been clear in advance that they would vote no – they didn’t spring this on party leadership. He also knew that they both believed this vote was necessary for them back in their home states. And by not going nuclear on them, he preserved the possibility that they would side with the caucus on future difficult votes, which paid off when Collins supported, and Murkowski abstained, on the Kavanaugh nomination.
And that’s a great point. Oftentimes Senators are given “permission” to vote against the party when it is needed for expedience. McCain really pulled a screw job. As I recall, he waited until last to vote with a thumbs down and a big smile.
Canada, the UK, and many other countries use FPTP and have a multi-party system.
The British political system is a two party system.[1] Since the 1920s, the two dominant parties have been the Conservative Party and the Labour Party. Before the Labour Party rose in British politics, the Liberal Party was the other major political party, along with the Conservatives. While coalition and minority governments have been an occasional feature of parliamentary politics, the first-past-the-post electoral system used for general elections tends to maintain the dominance of these two parties, though each has in the past century relied upon a third party, such as the Liberal Democrats, to deliver a working majority in Parliament. A Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition government held office from 2010 until 2015, the first coalition since 1945.[2] The coalition ended following parliamentary elections on 7 May 2015, in which the Conservative Party won an outright majority of seats, 330 of the 650 seats in the House of Commons, while their coalition partners lost all but eight seats.[3] - SOURCE
Now look at the parties represented in Canada’s House of Commons…dominated by two parties.
Quebec has an unusually large presence but Quebec seems a different creature than you find in most countries. Almost a country within a country (something Quebec has tried for in the past).
Here is the UK membership in the House of Commons, similar story (with Scotland being their sort-of equivalent to Quebec…Scotland has also tried for autonomy):
Not to derail the topic, but Canada has had a stronger 3rd party showing in the past with the right split between the Progressive-Conservative Party and the Reform Party which merged as the Conservative Party. At the moment, Canada is operating with a minority Liberal government propped by the NDP to ensure confidence. Almost 20% of the seats are held by the three smaller parties.
Even in the US, some races like the Warnock/Walker GA Senate seat was spoilered by the small Libertarian vote, and that is not a FPTP race with a runoff scheduled.
Thanks for all the info.
Do you see in the future a time when Congress will be less close to 50/50 (in both Senate and House) and more a runaway for either party?
I ask because I would like to know when in American history was the most lopsided balance between party representation in these institutions? And what events led to the other party gaining power back?
Only if you include Quebec which, as mentioned, is an unusual case and skews the stats (same with Scotland in the UK). Without them third parties are about 8.6% in Canada. Without NDP they don’t really register at all.
Sure. I cannot say when or by how much or which way it will swing but history shows the balance tends to swing back and forth over time and that is likely to continue. It may can take years or many years to see this though. Usually it is not fast.
So you are saying if we exclude the 3rd and 4th place parties, there is only a 2 party system? If my grandmother had wheels, she would be a bus.
I am saying you are not even at 20% with all of them and the largest of the third parties is Quebec which is its own thing that identifies as Quebec. It’d be like California trying to become its own country, not succeeding, and then having the California Party in congress. They’d be a huge third party in the House but the US would still be described as a two party system with a weird holdout.
FPTP tends to lean into two party systems which you absolutely see in Canada (and the UK).
Sure. As recently as 2010, for a short time the Democrats had 60 senators. It could definitely happen again, but probably not for a long time.
Just given where the races are, Republicans could conceivably end up with 60 Senate seats after the next election.
Republicans have a distinct advantage in the senate. While the majority of the population leans blue the majority of the states lean red.
during the period 1803-1823, the Democratic Republicans held margins in Congress as high as 3:1. It took the admission of new states and the rise of Andrew Jackson to swing the balance back to something closer to even.
And then the Jacksonian Democrats dominated Congress for a decade. Historically, lopsided party majorities in Congress have been the norm, such as Republicans in the late 19th/early 20th Century and Democrats for much of the mid-to-late 20th Century.
Remember Republicans and Democrats switched liberal <–> conservative in the 50s/60s.
So…was it liberals the whole time? (really asking)
I don’t think it’s correct to say that the parties “switched,” but rather that throughout the 20th Century both parties had significant liberal and conservative wings which were sometimes more or less ascendant. The parties becoming more ideologically pure was a gradual process over the back half of the 20th Century.
So you’re going to live a lie for years or perhaps decades just to get the chance to trick your party leaders in a close vote? You’d have to be very passionate about that one vote, and how do you know that situation will ever come to a head in exactly that way?
So. Possible? Yea. Likely? Nay.
It’s neither outdated nor ridiculous. There are lots of good reasons to have a party system, and even a strong party system.
-
We don’t give power to a single person. For any legislation to be enacted, it requires the cooperation of many people. It makes sense for people who have similar views to form parties and cooperate on doing the things that make politics possible. If every politician were expected to be a free agent, no one would be able to do anything and they would end up forming parties eventually.
-
As a voter, it’s impossible to actually know what a particular politician would do on every single issue. However, if that politician is a member of a party that you know generally lines up with your preferences, then you have some degree of assurance that E will be cooperating with a group that usually has goals you agree with.
The idea of “voting for the best candidate” is a foolish idea. It’s much easier to predict the goals and actions of a party than it is to read the tea leaves for any particular unaffiliated candidate.
And answering some of the earlier issues, while a legislator might occasionally vote against es party, it almost never happens that a legislator votes for a different party in a leadership context. In other words, if a Republican senator votes for Schumer instead of McConnell for majority leader, that senator will immediately stop being a Republican. So that is almost never going to happen.
This is a very important consideration. If you are thinking, “Well I generally am liberal but I like this Republican candidate for senator from my state,” understand that you aren’t just voting for “the best man.” You are also voting for McConnell’s judicial confirmation policy.