Will the 2 party duopoly ever end?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:55:12 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Will the 2 party duopoly ever end?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Poll
Question: Will the 2 party duopoly ever end?
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 62

Author Topic: Will the 2 party duopoly ever end?  (Read 1841 times)
Canis
canis
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,509


Political Matrix
E: -5.03, S: -6.26

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: May 16, 2020, 08:16:45 PM »
« edited: May 16, 2020, 08:20:28 PM by Canis »

Theirs a movement to start a populist third party and start running candidates in 2021 and the 2022 midterms called the peoples party that just joined with our revolution Los angeles you can read more about their party here https://peoplesparty.org/
but is it possible with our system for the duopoly to be broken?
https://news.gallup.com/poll/244094/majority-say-third-party-needed.aspx
Will the peoples party make an impact or will they be as irrelevant as the greens?
Logged
Orwell
JacksonHitchcock
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,413
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: May 16, 2020, 08:20:22 PM »

Eventually yes, but anytime soon probably.
Logged
Agonized-Statism
Anarcho-Statism
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,802


Political Matrix
E: -9.10, S: -5.83

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: May 16, 2020, 09:02:43 PM »
« Edited: May 16, 2020, 09:08:46 PM by Anarcho-Statism »

No. A lack of a double ballot majority system and proportional representation favors a two-party system. Plus, notice how fast people stopped criticizing the government itself for foreign war and domestic spying when Trump materialized. Suddenly, it became all about defeating red party or blue party. That's a powerful thing that the people in charge would have a hard time giving up. It frustrates change that would negatively affect all of them.
Logged
Rookie Yinzer
RFKFan68
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,188
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 16, 2020, 11:30:01 PM »

Why would it in a first past the post system?
Logged
Esteemed Jimmy
Jimmy7812
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,406
United States
Political Matrix
E: 2.47, S: -1.05

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: May 16, 2020, 11:37:26 PM »

No
Logged
Grassroots
Grassr00ts
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,741
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.94, S: 2.09

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: May 17, 2020, 01:14:02 AM »

Yeah, i'm sure a progressive party could come into play this decade. I sure hope it does.
Logged
Former President tack50
tack50
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,891
Spain


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: May 17, 2020, 05:28:41 AM »

Why would it in a first past the post system?

Well, the UK and Canada both use FPTP and have semi-relevant third parties but they are also parliamentary. Similarly France has a similar-ish political system to the US but with 2 rounds elections and has third parties

I think it is the combination of both 1 round presidential elections + FPTP that makes third parties completely non-existent.

If looking for a third party, honestly I think the most viable route would actually be to admit Puerto Rico as a state, given that the political system there is completely different than the rest of the US. Though it would be a third party in name only I suppose.
Logged
Lechasseur
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,757


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: 3.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: May 17, 2020, 05:52:33 AM »

Why would it in a first past the post system?

Well, the UK and Canada both use FPTP and have semi-relevant third parties but they are also parliamentary. Similarly France has a similar-ish political system to the US but with 2 rounds elections and has third parties

I think it is the combination of both 1 round presidential elections + FPTP that makes third parties completely non-existent.

This+Electoral College

A third party is simply not viable without eliminating the Electoral College.

Unless...maybe you can keep it but you switch to a 2 round system and the two candidates with the most electors get to the 2nd round. But even then in practice i think it would be hard to convince people.
Logged
kcguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,031
Romania


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: May 17, 2020, 09:49:14 AM »

In my opinion, third parties in the U.S. are only viable in two situations:

1.  The third party draws voters roughly equally from both major parties; or
2.  The third party limits itself to jurisdictions where one of the major parties routinely holds a 2-to-1 advantage.


In all other situations, it merely acts as a spoiler, helping the party it's most hostile to.
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,798
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: May 18, 2020, 03:02:08 AM »

Even in a Dem Trifecta,  in 2020s, the Rs will have the Crts, the 4th branch of govt
Logged
Amanda Huggenkiss
amanda dermichknutscht
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 658


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: May 18, 2020, 03:49:54 AM »

I think the only realistic option for a third party in the United States is some kind of regional political force, maybe through the seccession of a state party from its national counterparts (for example Vermont Republicans). Those parties could elect federal officeholders which would then join the Republican or Democratic caucus.
Logged
smoltchanov
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,376
Russian Federation


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: May 18, 2020, 05:31:20 AM »

Eventually yes, but anytime soon probably.

+1
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: May 18, 2020, 08:52:37 AM »

Everything eventually ends, right?
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: May 20, 2020, 12:26:26 AM »

The biggest factor would be if the existing parties at some point fail to absorb a political movement in substantial form that thus requires it to go outside of the existing tents, but that typically just reshuffles the deck chairs and you end up with a new party system with one of the old ones splitting between the new party and the older former competition (basically what happened in the 1850s).

Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: May 21, 2020, 09:39:59 AM »

The biggest factor would be if the existing parties at some point fail to absorb a political movement in substantial form that thus requires it to go outside of the existing tents, but that typically just reshuffles the deck chairs and you end up with a new party system with one of the old ones splitting between the new party and the older former competition (basically what happened in the 1850s).


What stops that from happening now is that national parties' apparati have become very good at finding new sources of discontent, buying them out, and astroturfing the whole thing.
Republicans have been very good at assimilating new movements but Democrats still think new movements need them more than the Democrats need the new movements.

That's where the next big potential reckoning of the system could be. The economy has been to this point unfair but there has been opportunity out of the sheer length stability and growing scale. Now that the economy is bad, there's opportunity for either the groups on the left to be the origin of a new successful party, for the Democrats to absorb them, or for the movements to abate

 If there's a V shaped economic recovery, I could see the far left mellowing out like they did in the 90s and the entire thing not happening. If the economy doesn't come back quickly and Democrats still perform poorly, that makes things more interesting.
Logged
Flyersfan232
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,794


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: June 16, 2020, 06:32:33 AM »

Why would it in a first past the post system?
i dont think it would work in a mmp system or event a pr system.
Logged
Cassandra
Situationist
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,673


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: June 17, 2020, 09:48:40 AM »

It is easer to imagine the US becoming a one-party dictatorship than balancing a three-party democracy.
Logged
Del Tachi
Republican95
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,711
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: 1.46

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: June 17, 2020, 10:15:47 AM »

The biggest factor would be if the existing parties at some point fail to absorb a political movement in substantial form that thus requires it to go outside of the existing tents, but that typically just reshuffles the deck chairs and you end up with a new party system with one of the old ones splitting between the new party and the older former competition (basically what happened in the 1850s).


What stops that from happening now is that national parties' apparati have become very good at finding new sources of discontent, buying them out, and astroturfing the whole thing.
Republicans have been very good at assimilating new movements but Democrats still think new movements need them more than the Democrats need the new movements. 

This just isn't really true.  The Democratic coalition has changed just as substantially as the Republicans have over the contemporary era.  Just look at how much the Democrats have zoomed left on issues like the environment, immigration and censorship since the 1980s.

The U.S. will never have a major third party because the GOP and Democrats are big and diffuse enough to morph their coalitions into whatever they need to do in order to win.   
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: June 18, 2020, 08:52:45 PM »

The biggest factor would be if the existing parties at some point fail to absorb a political movement in substantial form that thus requires it to go outside of the existing tents, but that typically just reshuffles the deck chairs and you end up with a new party system with one of the old ones splitting between the new party and the older former competition (basically what happened in the 1850s).


What stops that from happening now is that national parties' apparati have become very good at finding new sources of discontent, buying them out, and astroturfing the whole thing.
Republicans have been very good at assimilating new movements but Democrats still think new movements need them more than the Democrats need the new movements. 

This just isn't really true.  The Democratic coalition has changed just as substantially as the Republicans have over the contemporary era.  Just look at how much the Democrats have zoomed left on issues like the environment, immigration and censorship since the 1980s.

The U.S. will never have a major third party because the GOP and Democrats are big and diffuse enough to morph their coalitions into whatever they need to do in order to win.   

What does "left on censorship" mean? They were arguably the most pro-censorship in the late 1990s. And censorship isn't really a left-right thing, anyways. During the W administration, there was a substantial conservative cancel culture.
Logged
Del Tachi
Republican95
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,711
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: 1.46

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: June 19, 2020, 08:10:38 AM »

The biggest factor would be if the existing parties at some point fail to absorb a political movement in substantial form that thus requires it to go outside of the existing tents, but that typically just reshuffles the deck chairs and you end up with a new party system with one of the old ones splitting between the new party and the older former competition (basically what happened in the 1850s).


What stops that from happening now is that national parties' apparati have become very good at finding new sources of discontent, buying them out, and astroturfing the whole thing.
Republicans have been very good at assimilating new movements but Democrats still think new movements need them more than the Democrats need the new movements. 

This just isn't really true.  The Democratic coalition has changed just as substantially as the Republicans have over the contemporary era.  Just look at how much the Democrats have zoomed left on issues like the environment, immigration and censorship since the 1980s.

The U.S. will never have a major third party because the GOP and Democrats are big and diffuse enough to morph their coalitions into whatever they need to do in order to win.   

What does "left on censorship" mean? They were arguably the most pro-censorship in the late 1990s. And censorship isn't really a left-right thing, anyways. During the W administration, there was a substantial conservative cancel culture.

Doesn’t really matter.  The point is Democrats change and morph their coalition all the time to remain competitive
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,357


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: June 19, 2020, 02:22:24 PM »

Why would it in a first past the post system?

Well, the UK and Canada both use FPTP and have semi-relevant third parties but they are also parliamentary. Similarly France has a similar-ish political system to the US but with 2 rounds elections and has third parties

I think it is the combination of both 1 round presidential elections + FPTP that makes third parties completely non-existent.

This+Electoral College

A third party is simply not viable without eliminating the Electoral College.

Unless...maybe you can keep it but you switch to a 2 round system and the two candidates with the most electors get to the 2nd round. But even then in practice i think it would be hard to convince people.


The First round could basically be multiple parties run and the two candidates who win most congressional districts advance

The Second round could be the election between the top 2 with the electoral college
Logged
Beefalow and the Consumer
Beef
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,123
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.77, S: -8.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: June 19, 2020, 02:58:45 PM »

No, because the moment you have more than two parties, inevitably coalition caucuses form, which then become new parties, bringing you back to two.

You could argue that in the Third Party System, there were really four parties: Solid South Democrats, New York Machine Democrats, Eastern Business Republicans, and Midwest Progressive Republicans. And yet you still had two cohesive, opposing coalitions.

If we had a Parliamentary system, there could be room for more than two parties, but while that works well in places like Germany, in Israel it has resulted in a party that gets 28% of the vote controlling the country's entire destiny. I could easily see a Trump rump of Republicans controlling everything by dividing and splintering everyone who opposed them. A 35% plurality would be forever in the driver's seat.
Logged
Former President tack50
tack50
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,891
Spain


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: June 20, 2020, 05:44:43 AM »

If we had a Parliamentary system, there could be room for more than two parties, but while that works well in places like Germany, in Israel it has resulted in a party that gets 28% of the vote controlling the country's entire destiny. I could easily see a Trump rump of Republicans controlling everything by dividing and splintering everyone who opposed them. A 35% plurality would be forever in the driver's seat.

Uh, no it wouldn't? In Israel a party with 28% of the vote controls the country because the rest of parliament lets them do so.

But there are plenty of examples in parliamentary systems of a party with a large plurality not being in the driver's seat (let alone being there forever). New Zealand is a good example, since National got a huge plurality of 44.5% yet it was Labor who ended up ruling the country.

West Germany in the 1960s and 1970s also offers anothe example, where the CDU got pluralities in all elections except 1972; yet it was the SPD who ended up ruling the country.

If the "Trumpist party" ended up controlling the country with a 35% plurality forever it'd be because the rest of parliament lets them

Not to mention, if the US kept FPTP, the 2 party system, while weakened, would not go fully away. Just look at the UK.
Logged
Alben Barkley
KYWildman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,282
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.97, S: -5.74

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: June 21, 2020, 12:42:06 AM »

There has been a two party system since 1796 in this country, with the brief exception of the “Era of Good Feelings” under Monroe, during which the Democratic-Republican Party was effectively the only national party. But that quickly split up and not long after came back to two parties again.

The way our government is set up practically makes a two party system inevitable. We’d have to change how we conduct elections (i.e. Get rid of First Past the Post, adopt Multi-Winner RCV system or something, etc.) and/or adopt a parliamentary system for this to change. I don’t see this happening, at least not any time soon.
Logged
coloradocowboi
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,621
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: June 22, 2020, 11:17:32 AM »

Lol @ all the people voting no.

America will end one day. Everything ends. And faster than anybody ever thinks.

But, yes, if both parties remain committed to furthering only corporate interests in an era defined by internet populism, both will either evolve into something new or die out. But I think our constitution has maybe fifty years left max before we realize how archaic it is and throw it out anyway.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.064 seconds with 13 queries.