Why Are There Only Two Parties In The USA?

Many democracies have more than two strongish parties, though they often coalesce into two factions in Parliament: Government and Opposition. The present Conservative government in U.K. does not have a majority of seats in the House of Commons, but rules with the aid of the Liberal Democrats.

Fifty years ago, despite only having two major parties, there were factions which crossed party lines to form de-facto coalitions in Congress. Yellow-dog Democrats would sometimes join the Republicans, though Democrats might then still prevail with the help of liberal Republicans. This happens less these days.

I wonder if there’s something in the American character that “likes” things to be strictly Either-Or. For example, note that ties are allowed in soccer, or even Japanese baseball, but this strikes many Americans as “wrong.”

In the USA, the two parties are tradition at this point. High school civics teachers teach pupils that we have “The Two-Party System.” There’s a not-so-subtle message that you’re not really supposed to vote for anyone else.

And in regions with one-party dominance, it’s even worse. To vote for the other major party is seen as a kind of treason. To vote for a third party and throw your vote away might be less evil, but it might make “Them” win.

:smack: I asked myself “Am I getting that wrong? No, “Barry Sanders” sounds really familiar; that must be right.”.

In Montana, we had candidates for the Constitution Party and the Natural Law Party, too.

Utter nonsense. I’ve been through the public school system. It is not standard for a teacher to suggest that people shouldn’t vote for whom they want to.

Who implies this form of treason? Not teachers. Perhaps parents, but I don’t know. I’ve never heard anyone in my family, my circle of friends, or my teachers telling me that I’m committing treason if I don’t vote for X.

Perhaps I exaggerated. Then again, ask a Democrat what they think of Nader, then look how many Democrats there are. The message is out there.

I have never heard Nader or those who voted for him described as traitors. Fools, perhaps, but not traitors.

How can you possibly, so polarize politics, as to reach absolute grid lock, if you let more than two parties play?:smiley:

A third or fourth party means it’s not as easy to polarize people so completely. Less black and white, more grey areas. Less ‘for us or against us’ and more ‘there must be some middle ground’. With more parties, (viable, I mean!), they tend to react quicker to trends, change etc. Instead of this party, or that, owning an issue you get, well, more perspectives and, well, more choices.

I think this is the main answer. If the US switched to the Westminster system, I bet third parties would thrive.

Two-party politics was the norm in UK until the 1970s when regional nationalism started to make inroads on the popular vote. Whigs-Tory, Tory-Liberal, Tory-Labour. The Liberals came close to extinction in the 1950s, and they never held office again after 1922, until 2010 when they went into a Conservative-Liberal coalition (in the late '70s they propped up the minority Labour government with confidence and supply but no more)