To make my response clearer, the reason Third Parties are “held back” in America is the institution of the Presidency.
Duverger’s Law embodies the principle that first past the post elections tend to create two parties vying for the median voter. That dynamic works on the District level: in Britain, you have urban constituencies that tend to be a battle between the Tories and Labor, you have more rural constituencies that tend to be a battle between the Liberals and the Tories, and you have the more progressive constituencies that are fought between the Libs and Labor.
The institution of the Presidency in the States, in contrast, makes the entire country a de facto single district. In on and off years, the focus is always on the President, his coalition, and the coalition against him. This pulls the political system into two camps. If they had a Presidency in the UK, the LibDems would probably cease to be a viable political party, and their voters would have to choose between the fiscal and social liberalism of Labor or the fiscal and social conservativism of the Tories.
So, what’s holding third parties back in the United States? Look to Article II of the U.S. Constitution.
In addition to what Piker posted, (and I am amazed that it took that long for his point to be made), the separate executive–both the president and the same system used at the state levels with governors–means that there is no need for a coalition government. One party will control the executive, regardless how the other elections fare. There is never a need for two (or ten) smaller parties to unite to form a cabinet or for a large, but weakened, party to seek support from some smaller parties.
There have been a couple of cases where “third” parties actually became successful, but they always did so by draining enough from an older party to simply kill it off. For example, the Republicans were a separate party from the Whigs at a time when there were actually four or five parties, but the Republicans were able to establish themselves when the Whigs suffered serious internal divisions over the issue of slavery.
From what I’ve heard on the news about the U.K. elections, there hasn’t been a coalition government since 1974, so it seems that parties aren’t really uniting all that often in the U.K. either.
The only way a third party can have some success is to be a regional party and maybe win a few states in a close election so neither a Republican or Democrat gets 270 electoral votes. Before the electors cast their votes (they are theoretically independent), the third party would cut a deal for their voters. This almost happened in 1968 with George Wallace in 1968 where if Hubert Humphrey had carried California, it would have gone to the House of Representatives.
But for whatever reason third party candidates after: John Anderson in 1980 and Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996 have been more national based. Under the current system which is based on winning states, this is not a formula to succeed. Trying to set up a third party based on winning House seats seems futile: both parties have gerrymanded seats enough that in elections the overwhelming number of seats are safe.
I think despite all the grumbling about the two major parties (I grouse about both everyday). enough people are satisfied with the two gangs of idiots we have mucking things up. And both of them do occasionally adopt their ideas: Socialist Party candidates Norman Thomas and Eugene Debs had a lot of their platform eventually adopted.
Actually, there hasn’t been a coalition government in the U.K. since WWII.
In 1974, no party got a majority, and the Labour party ended up governing as a minority party. However, since no other party had seats at the Cabinet, it was not a coalition government.
Except Article II and the Twelfth Amendment do not create a First-past-the-Post system for the election of the President. The President must obtain a majority of the votes in the Electoral College. Failing that, the election goes to the Representatives.
So, even if one accepts that the Presidential election is effectively a single-district election (which personally, I think Bush v. Gore refutes ), you can’t say that the lack of effective third parties is caused by a First-past-the-Post system.
Canadian here will attempt to chime in. The NDP (our third party, will-never-form-the-government socialists) came out of the great depression as a regional alternative, particularly in the impoverished prairies where that sort of stuff is a big sell (don’t Minnesota’s Dems call themselves the Farmer Labour party or something like that?). In a (largely) left of centre country, it’s not unfathomable to have a moderate left and a hard left party. Conversely, in the United States, which is admittedly more conservative, maybe those Tea Party people will break off from the Republicans and form their own party? Large rifts are great at creating new political parties
It’s not without precedence. Teddy Roosevelt’s Bull Moose party carried 6 states. Maybe not the most flattering example, but Strom Thurmond had a strong showing with the Segregationist party. He carried four states - both show signs of a the potential for a third party candidate, if not as rulers, but at least king makers.
All the states have something similar to “Democratic Party of State,” “State Democratic Party” or “State Democratic Committee” forms, except the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party and North Dakota Democratic-NPL Party.
Republican parties only use one of the three generic forms.
), you can’t say that the lack of effective third parties is caused by a First-past-the-Post system.