Will we ever reach a greater than 2 party system?

[Antonio the Sixth]

A more than two-party system would be possible if we have also a massive electoral reform for congress and presidency. I know the probability of having it today is very low, but I still believe Americans will realize how archaic and undermocratic their current voting system is.

[Vepres]

It's very possible on the congressional level if a third party can break through that first wall and get three or four seats in the house. Then, a three party system could exist and be pretty stable IMO. Though I don't think this third party would have much success at the Presidential level.

[pragmatic liberal]

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 the presidency has some impact.

For example, if the U.S. used FPTP but also was a parliamentary democracy, then I think that, while you'd still have two large parties generally controlling the government 1 or 2 large regional parties and/or 1 or two other minor parties might have representation in parliament, similar to how Canada and the UK are.

I could imagine that if the U.S. had a parliamentary system, you'd have a liberal-progressive party (strong on the coasts, parts of the mountain west, and the West Coast), a conservative-but-populist party in the South and plains West, and a centrist/classical-liberal party that functioned as the opposition party to the other two in their respective regions. (So for example, on a state-by-state basis you'd have two-party systems, but you'd have a two-and-a-half or three-party system at the center.)

It seems to me that because parliamentary democracy allows for post-election coalition-building, some greater fragmentation is possible. In a presidential system, you need to coalesce supporters between as few candidates as possible at the outset to prevent splitting the vote.

[Sasquatch]

1. IRV
2. Proportional Representation
3. Open up the debates


I think the 2 party system is a farce.

[Frodo]

On a long-term basis (unless things are changed), we will always have a two-party duopoly dominating the electoral system -whether they are Federalists and Democratic-Republicans, Democrats and Whigs, or Democrats and Republicans. 

[Vepres]

Fair public campaign finance would be a good start, but does anybody think the Libertarians or Greens could seriously win more than a handful of seats even under a proportional representation system?

If campaign finance laws were fair, I'd bet we'd see many more strong independent candidates than we do now.

[Sasquatch]

Fair public campaign finance would be a good start, but does anybody think the Libertarians or Greens could seriously win more than a handful of seats even under a proportional representation system?

Have to start somewhere.

[Free Palestine]

People will first have to stop treating third parties like jokes.  Then the parties would have to not act like jokes.  We have to fix Congressional districting, and the third parties need to focus more on these legislative races, both at the state and national level.  There needs to be a base of support before there can even be talk of a presidential run.

[Хahar 🤔]

People will first have to stop treating third parties like jokes.  Then the parties would have to not act like jokes.  We have to fix Congressional districting, and the third parties need to focus more on these legislative races, both at the state and national level.  There needs to be a base of support before there can even be talk of a presidential run.

I think the first steps are reversed. Why wouldn't people treat joke parties as jokes?

[The Age Wave]

I would think about joining a "Ble Dog" Party.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

new to the forum. i don't think there will ever be a greater than 2 party system because of how our government is structured. it'd be harder to get things done legislatively, and there aren't really any distinctive third parties (besides the Libertarians.) green basically being Democrats on 'roids, as far as the issues are concerned.

[Jacobtm]

Britain and Canada use FPTP SMD and have more than 2 main parties. Latin American democracies also show that FPTP SMD systems with Presidents can maintain more than 2 parties.

In 1992 when Ross Perot nearly got 20% of the vote, Bill Clinton won the EC by a majority. In fact, with most states giving the EC votes to the plurality winner, it seems that our system really helps ensure (at least with only 3 parties) that someone will get an EC majority even without a PV majority, as long as one candidate is favored by a few points at least.

I wouldn't be surprised if New England Democrats eventually became corrupt enough to allow Greens or independents to get some seats there.

Maine had an independent governor until 2003.
Vermont has an independent Senator.
Connecticut has a Connecticut for Lieberman Party Senator.
In NJ, Daggett (I) is now polling around 20% for governor.
In NY 23, we have a situation where the Conservative Party candidate might actually win.

Unfortunately, the people who've bucked the 2 party system haven't (so far) helped establish any alternative system, they just stick out as exceptions. However, enough exceptions could hopefully lead to something. Not that New England/the North-East is at all destined to break the 2 party system, it just seems most likely in a region with an effective 1 party monopoly that doesn't have authoritarian tendencies.

[CatoMinor]

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

the electoral college should stay, it should however be amended so that a simple majority wins. that would if nothing else tear down the fire wall of throwing elections to house which kills any hopes of a third party presidential candidate winning.

[Хahar 🤔]

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

the electoral college should stay, it should however be amended so that a simple majority wins. that would if nothing else tear down the fire wall of throwing elections to house which kills any hopes of a third party presidential candidate winning.

A majority in the electoral college is already the criterion to win.

[ag]

Longterm, as a stable proposition - no, unless the Constitution is changed (e.g., say, executive presidency is abolished, or proportional representation elements introduced into Congressional elections). Unfortunately, the two-party system is a near-inevitable consequence of the very constitutional structure.

Short-term - possible, for a period of, say, 1-3 electoral cycles. One possibility is a temporary emergence of a local two-party system distinct from the national (e.g., Democratic and Progressive parties in New England, Democratic and Republican parties elsewhere). This won't last much longer than until the first time the presidential election goes to Congress, if that long. But it could happen.

Now, it is not inevitable that the two parties out there would be the same. Perhaps, in 60 years it will be the Remocratic and Depublican parties that rule the land. But two parties they will be.

[5280]

Didn't there used to be a Democratic-Republican Party that was the opposition against the Federalists?  After a while the D-R party broke up and the new Democrat party was formed and the Whigs became?

Will that happen to the current two party system in the future?

[Хahar 🤔]

Didn't there used to be a Democratic-Republican Party that was the opposition against the Federalists?  After a while the D-R party broke up and the new Democrat party was formed and the Whigs became?

Will that happen to the current two party system in the future?

This is one of the most hilarious oversimplifications I've ever seen.

[Free Palestine]

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

the electoral college should stay, it should however be amended so that a simple majority wins. that would if nothing else tear down the fire wall of throwing elections to house which kills any hopes of a third party presidential candidate winning.

What kills any hope of third party candidates winning is the "winner-take-all" system.  If a candidate gets 51% of a state's popular vote, he or she wins all of the electoral votes.  Essentially disenfranchising all but half of the electorate.

If it were actually proportional, you may see third party or independent candidates getting a few electoral votes here or there.

In general, the third parties have no chance if they continue to put all focus on the presidency.  They need a political base of support and professionalism.

[Badger]

No. Nor does it need to. American parties---despite some increasing polarization in recent years, especially on the right---are very much big tent organizations catering to almost any point across the political spectrum. Most European parties cannot accommodate in a single organization having Al Franken and Dan Boren in a leftist party or Olympia Snowe and Jim Demint on the right.

Almost any combination of political views represented by their local constituency can be run under a major party banner. Libertarian-minded? Run as a socially liberal Republican. Hard core leftist? Why run as a Green when you can enter the Democratic primary without changing a single position on the issues? If you can't win a major party primary that's at least somewhat compatible with your ideological base, you're sure as hell not going to win a general election in your community.

People can whine all they want about the power, money, machinery and tradition of the two major parties "shutting out" 3rd party candidates, but when one looks at the utter inability of 3rd parties to win partisan races at even the most local grass roots level that argument falls apart. Insurgent candidates beat the odds against money and machinery every year folks, so if there was a need for 3rd parties there'd certainly be a number of electoral successes out there, right?

Forget congressional or statewide races. Third party candidates have massively failed to win even local state legislature races that can be run and won with relatively little money and party organization. Out of the nearly 7400 state legislative seats nationwide (including state senators), how many are held by 3rd party candidates? The Libertarians and Greens currently have none, IIRC. The Constitution Party had one in Montana who was term-limited out last year. Someone mentioned the Working Families Party having a seat in NY. And, well, that's darn near it.

If third parties are going 0 for 7400 nationwide in these local races, some of which only have a couple thousand total votes cast, that indicates the lack of success for third parties isn't due to structural or financial barriers, but that voters near universally aren't buying what the 3rd parties are selling, or the major parties are selling basically the same product anywhere there's demand for it.

[CatoMinor]

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

the electoral college should stay, it should however be amended so that a simple majority wins. that would if nothing else tear down the fire wall of throwing elections to house which kills any hopes of a third party presidential candidate winning.

A majority in the electoral college is already the criterion to win.

Meant to say plurality

[Joe Biden 2020]

Sadly, no.

[Magic 8-Ball]

No.  One of the two main parties will always co-opt whatever policies make third parties even remotely popular, even if only in spirit.

[jimsnaza]

What if the far-left and far-right combined to form a populist party that has different ideologies based on the region that they ran in? Palin/Huckabee/Franken/Sanders all together, but they would be for low middle-class taxes, bringing jobs back to America, and supporting cheaper health care.

The teabaggers and the far left could come together against the big corporations and the bailouts, plus the Ron Paul libertarians could join too. I think that the middle of both parties allow too much influence from corporations.

I'm a progressive Democrat, but I'm from Illinois, meaning I would effectively represent my region. Would any Republicans think that this could be a good idea?

[Хahar 🤔]

Both the Republican and Democratic parties used to be that sort of party. Many countries are ruled by such parties. They tend to be kleptocratic.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

What if the far-left and far-right combined to form a populist party that has different ideologies based on the region that they ran in? Palin/Huckabee/Franken/Sanders all together, but they would be for low middle-class taxes, bringing jobs back to America, and supporting cheaper health care.

The teabaggers and the far left could come together against the big corporations and the bailouts, plus the Ron Paul libertarians could join too. I think that the middle of both parties allow too much influence from corporations.

I'm a progressive Democrat, but I'm from Illinois, meaning I would effectively represent my region. Would any Republicans think that this could be a good idea?

that would be a fractious coalition, it would be impossible to decide on a nominee to bring the party together, because by definition it excludes any "moderates."