Will we ever reach a greater than 2 party system?

[zclark1994]

What do you guys think.  I would really like for another party to gain strength, preferably I would like 5+ parties to have strength, but I'm not sure that it could happen.

[Verily]

Not as long as we have a Presidency and a non-IRV system of being elected to it.

[Хahar 🤔]

No, never. There's no incentive.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Our method of electing Presidents strongly encourages a two party system.  We also don't have any place with the exceptions of  Alaska, Hawaii, and if it ever becomes a state, Puerto Rico, that has a potentially distinct enough identity to give a separatist/autonomist party a chance.

Now might one or the other of the two parties collapse?  Yes, but a new second party would quickly rise from the ashes.

[Smid]

Not as long as we have a Presidency and a non-IRV system of being elected to it.

Exactly. The only way it's happening is if the system is changed to either IRV or STV/Proportional Representation. The current system promotes a two party system. IRV for President may lead to a greater party development, but there needs to be more chance of minor parties getting into the Legislature before any more parties can really take off.

[zclark1994]

I have to agree with everyone here.  It's not really very conceivable or easilly achieved for a 3rd party to become popular.

[You kip if you want to...]

A true 3+ party system would result in congress electing the President/Vice President more or less everytime. It just wouldn't be very good.

[pragmatic liberal]

As others have pointed out, our electoral system and constitutional setup pretty makes a two-party system inevitable. We elect our legislative bodies by first-past-the-post and we have a president who needs an electoral college majority.

Both aspects - first-past-the-post and presidentialism - on their own promote two party or two-bloc systems.

If you have first-past-the-post in a parliamentary system, you can get 2+ party systems like Britain or Canada: typically two large parties who actually form the government and a few smaller parties or regional parties that compete at the margins.

If you have a presidential system, you encourage at least a 2-bloc system because otherwise you fragment either the left or the right fragments their votes and cedes the executive.

Combine the two and you have the incentives aligned for an extremely strong two-party system. Add the electoral college into the mix and it becomes even more difficult for broad-based third parties to play a role.

On top of that, there's the fact that the two parties as so entrenched that all mainstream groups basically work within the existing system, leaving mostly fringe activists in third parties. And add restrictive third-party ballot access laws and you reinforce it even more.

If you permitted states to elect reps via multimember districts with proportional representation and if you loosened ballot access laws, improved public financing, and allowed electoral fusion, you'd get SOME third-party representation in Congress, but we still have a strongly two-party system.

The only way I could see us developing, say, a three party system, would be if we adopted STV in all House elections, allowed electoral fusion, and abolished the electoral college with a 40% runoff threshold. That would probably give rise to a conservative party, a progressive-liberal party, and a centrist party, although most states would only feature meaningful competition between 2 out of the 3. Even then, the whole presidential aspect might still cause it to trend back towards two-partyism.

[pbrower2a]

Eventually one of the two Parties will foul up badly like the Federalists or Whigs, and the unwieldy party that survives will split. Such will happen if extremists take over a Party and start purging away moderates in the name of ideological consistency. 

[Хahar 🤔]

Eventually one of the two Parties will foul up badly like the Federalists or Whigs, and the unwieldy party that survives will split. Such will happen if extremists take over a Party and start purging away moderates in the name of ideological consistency. 

This has never happened before. There is no reason to think it will.

[Psychic Octopus]

Yes-- if we get rid of the electoral college.

[Smid]

Eventually one of the two Parties will foul up badly like the Federalists or Whigs, and the unwieldy party that survives will split. Such will happen if extremists take over a Party and start purging away moderates in the name of ideological consistency. 

I'm more inclined to believe the opposite. As a party is taken over by ideological purists, it finds itself unelectable in more and more areas, but probably having strong regional roots that prevent it from entirely imploding. Meanwhile the other party becomes a coalition of factions which previously worked closely together when their party only had a 50-50 shot at winning the presidency, but with the demise of the other dominant party, the stakes of winning become higher, and now that their party is super-dominant on the national stage, the internal factions begin warring with each other. This leads to the party splitting to form two parties, each of which has equal shot at the presidency (and thus equilibrium is restored) however the party that previously existed but had collapsed, so long as it still has strong regional roots, will probably remain holding seats in Congress and possibly the Senate.

[pragmatic liberal]

Yes-- if we get rid of the electoral college.

It's unlikely that abolishing the electoral college alone would create a multiparty system. So long as you just need a plurality to win the election, a two-party system will still be favored.

And even if you have a 50% runoff threshold, it will probably still tend towards a two-party system, because Congress is elected via first-past-the-post and therefore is structurally biased towards a two-party system.

[Psychic Octopus]

Yes-- if we get rid of the electoral college.

It's unlikely that abolishing the electoral college alone would create a multiparty system. So long as you just need a plurality to win the election, a two-party system will still be favored.

And even if you have a 50% runoff threshold, it will probably still tend towards a two-party system, because Congress is elected via first-past-the-post and therefore is structurally biased towards a two-party system.

True, Maybe I was just of the opinion that a third party would destroy the EC as we know it.

[Free Palestine]

If people start to get pissed off, then yes.  Otherwise though, I'm cynical that we'll ever get out of the hole we've dug for ourselves with the two-party system.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     No. If the United States still exists in 1,000 years, I would be very surprised if its major parties are any other than the Republicans & Democrats.

[Vepres]

I think you'll occasionally see independents break through, especially because of the internet, but a strong third party isn't likely. Who knows? If Perot had won the Presidency, there may very well have been a strong (relatively) third party.

[Franzl]

I don't think the presidency has much to do with the party system.

Far more important is the electoral system. FPTP elections (especially using gerrymandered districts) naturally maintain a 2-party system.

Parties need to get seats in the legislature in order to become viable political forces.

[Vepres]

I don't think the presidency has much to do with the party system.

Far more important is the electoral system. FPTP elections (especially using gerrymandered districts) naturally maintain a 2-party system.

Parties need to get seats in the legislature in order to become viable political forces.

I think that candidates could have won on Perot's coattails in 1996 assuming he was popular. Vermont has FPTP, yet they have three parties.

[Franzl]

I don't think the presidency has much to do with the party system.

Far more important is the electoral system. FPTP elections (especially using gerrymandered districts) naturally maintain a 2-party system.

Parties need to get seats in the legislature in order to become viable political forces.

I think that candidates could have won on Perot's coattails in 1996 assuming he was popular. Vermont has FPTP, yet they have three parties.

Vermont is still essentially a 2-party system, even if the Progressives have a couple of seats.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

If the current electoral system only regional (or being slightly more outlandish but entirely altogether impossible, race) based parties have a chance of breaking the system - and then only at congressional level, not at the presidential.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

     No. If the United States still exists in 1,000 years, I would be very surprised if its major parties are any other than the Republicans & Democrats.

This, basically.

[Lief 🗽]

Probably not, since our institutions, as other have said, seem to have all been designed to purposefully prevent more than two parties.

(Though, France is also Presidential and essentially does FPTP, and they have a vibrant and extensive party system, more so than some countries whose political institutions are created with the goal of proportionalism. Not quite sure how that happened.)

[Associate Justice PiT]

Probably not, since our institutions, as other have said, seem to have all been designed to purposefully prevent more than two parties.

(Though, France is also Presidential and essentially does FPTP, and they have a vibrant and extensive party system, more so than some countries whose political institutions are created with the goal of proportionalism. Not quite sure how that happened.)

     I think the two-round system helps a lot there. People are more likely to give minor parties a serious consideration because they can vote for one & then vote for their favored major party in the second round. This failed in 2002, though, with Jacques Chirac versus Jean-Marie Le Pen in the second round.

     There is also the fact that people in France seem to have more ideological variation, so parties that get a few percent can exist at the fringes. That doesn't explain MoDem or NC, though.

     A better explanation by someone who knows more about French politics would be appreciated.

[Verily]

I don't think the presidency has much to do with the party system.

Far more important is the electoral system. FPTP elections (especially using gerrymandered districts) naturally maintain a 2-party system.

Parties need to get seats in the legislature in order to become viable political forces.

I think that candidates could have won on Perot's coattails in 1996 assuming he was popular. Vermont has FPTP, yet they have three parties.

Vermont is still essentially a 2-party system, even if the Progressives have a couple of seats.

Vermont is also very small. It's much easier to break FPTP's deadening impact if the electorate you're dealing with is very small.

That's part of why I strongly advocate greatly increasing the size of Congress. More congressmen means more and smaller congressional districts, which makes it far easier to keep congressmen responsible for their actions as they represent areas with more uniform interests.