Thank you for the comprehensive answers from which I have learned a lot. I was told many years ago that the US had two prescribed parties by law - clearly that was wrong.
I do understand that a first-past-the-post electoral system where there is only one winner tends to default to a two party state. We had this is NZ until 1995. We now have proportional voting and it results in a more colourful Parliament which is also more representative of the population. For example a Maori Party.
In the a Native American Party and an Hispanic Party would have value.
We had a three party system twice – during the run-up to the Civil War, and again in the 1870s. The first was the Democratic, Whig, and Free Soil parties, the latter two being consolidated into the Republicans in the late 1850s. There was also a strong fourth party, the American (“Know Nothing”) Party, anti=immigrant, anti-Catholic (and -Jewish) and generally marginalized. The second resulted from the Republicans having split into the regular Republicans and the Liberal Republicans, which after Horace Greeley’s death largely were subsumed back into the two major parties. The Populists in the 1890s also had a strong regional showing in the Upper Midwest but then faded out.
During the 20th century, third parties appeared regularly but were largely the vehicles for a single charismatic figure and faded into oblivion after he failed to win. These included three distinct groups calling themselves the Progressive Party. They include:
[ul]
[li]1912 - Progressive (Bull Moose) - Teddy Roosevelt[/li][li]1924 - Progressive - Robert LaFollette[/li][li]1948 - Progressive (later American Labor and NYS Liberal) - Henry Wallace, and also the States Rights Democrats - Strom Thurmond[/li][li]1968 - American Independent - George Wallace[/li][li]1990s - Reform - Ross Perot[/li][/ul]
Ken001, I was also once baffled by the Winner-take-all-system and the resulting Two-Party-System in the USA. I got some very enlightening answers in this thread:
Because Canadian political parties have been in a state of turmoil for two decades due to regional politics. The two-party system (which can still have functionally nonexistent third parties like the federal NDP before recent years or the Social Credit party) collapsed in 1993 because the Progressive Conservative Party fell apart when Mulroney’s shaky coalition fell apart and was replaced with Reform and the Bloc. Reform managed to gobble up the PC party and become a credible national party in the process, but the partisan allegiances of Quebec are still pretty unstable.
Aren’t the primaries another factor in this, as in eliminating runner-up candidates who might be tempted to run as third parties? They seem very odd from my perspective.
This is “Larsen’s opening”. It’s somewhat unconventional but not seen as inherently bad. If both players are professional a draw is the most likely result.
I don’t think the first past the post electoral system explains as much as the Americans here seem to think. The UK has a first past the post electoral system, but, although it certainly has only two major parties, it has several minor parties who can and do get MPs elected. The Liberals are not only part of the governing coalition now, but they have persisted as a real electoral force ever since they ceded the role of being one of the “major” parties to Labour, some time in the 1920s or '30s. They have always managed to get at least a handful of MPs elected, and were also in a sort of informal coalition with Labour for a period in the late 1970s. Currently they hold 57 parliamentary seats, compared to the Conservative majority’s 306 and Labour’s 258: not negligible. The House of Commons also currently contains 27 members from 7 other parties (counting Sinn Fein, whose 5 elected members do not sit), and one independent.
This is a lot more diverse than the long established situation in both houses of the US Congress, where the only two exceptions to complete two-party dominance are Bernie Saunders and Joe Lieberman, both of whom can be counted as Democrats for the vast majority of purposes. I do not think a proper answer has been given as to why the two party dominance in the USA is so much more extreme than in Britain. (The electoral clout of some of Britain’s minor parties - not the Lib Dems - can be explained in terms of regional issues, but the USA has some very different regions too. Heck, it is divided into fifty states, not just four!)
Thanks for that - I meant to say “king’s rook’s pawn” but since I didn’t know about Larsen’s opening, I’m glad I made that mistake, since it gave me the chance to learn something new.
In a first past the post system, third (and fourth, fifth, etc) parties come about by quickly building a majority in a specific region. Which is to say, you’re only a “third” party on the national stage- in the divisions where you actually get elected you are the first or the second party. In the UK that is easier because of the big regional divides between England, Scotland, Wales & NI. In the US there haven’t been any strong enough regional issues to cause a third party to rise.
Don’t forget that until recently, many states were essentially one-party states. Much of the former Confederacy had no functioning Republican party. And for a while North Dakota could have been considered a one-party Republican state. Even now, there are some states in which one party is so dominant that the other major party is not really major.
But major-minor parties like the SNP and Plaid Cymru are based on ethnicities or nationalities, not just regions. We’ve never had ethnicity-specific parties in the United States, possibly because ethnicities and regions aren’t co-extensive. But there is a very pronounced urban-rural divide in the United States, which has become aligned recently along liberal-conservative/Democratic-Republican/blue-red lines.
The primaries don’t prevent third-party candidacies at the general election. In 2008, there were Green, Libertarian, Randian, Socialist, and Far Right candidates on the presidential ballot.
And it’s not unheard of for primary losers to become third party candidates, such as John Anderson in 1980, Alan Keyes in 2008, and Pat Buchanan in 2000
Not really. Canada has two things the US doesn’t: a unicameral legislature (or at least only one elected legislative house) and the Westminster parliamentary system.
It also doesn’t have something we do, which is the Electoral College.
As a result of one or more of those things, Canada, like the UK, has a functioning third party. I think the main reason is the Westminster system, which gives a third party the potential of being in government after any given election; after all, the winning party may not be able to form a government without it. That potential doesn’t exist in the US; it doesn’t matter if neither major party has an absolute majority in the House or Senate.
Indeed, it’s not uncommon for Canadian third parties to talk about mergers after a particularly poor showing.
After the most recent federal election, there was plenty of speculation about the Liberals merging with the NDP in order to beat the Conservatives. Contrast that with Saskatchewan’s provincial parties, where the Conservatives and the Liberals merged to beat the NDP!
But in our system, the concept of “forming a government” doesn’t exist as it does in a parliamentary system, because the executive is elected separately.