As a European I always wonder why Americans don’t create an alternative party to the Democrats, after all it is the party that in 2016 cheated in the primaries so that Hillary would win and still lost to an idiot.
If you create a real left-wing party you can seriously propose things like socialized healthcare just as the right is not shy about proposing crazy things like banning abortion.
The only difference is that they have been successful in colonizing the Republican Party and the Democratic Party is simply an outdated instrument that no longer represents its own bases.
As a European I always wonder why Americans don’t create an alternative party to the Democrats
A third party has no chance in a first past the post system. If you create an alternative party to the Democrats, you’re just making sure the Republicans win every election.
Americans are taught from elementary school that voting third party is basically a sin, its repeated on all forms of media and treated as fact for every single election regardless of the situation. When people say things like ‘America is the most propagandized country in the world’ this is part of what they’re referring to.
Americans somehow believe they’re just too different from all those countries that made things like public transport, healthcare, and more than two political parties work. They believe those things simply wont work here even if they work elsewhere.
I don’t know, I don’t deny what you say, but as I was answering to another, then the United States is not a democracy anymore, it is a plutocracy where a few elites can decide policies, but the population lacks the capacity to change the trends even if there is a broad consensus for it.
I’ve noticed that the loudest the politicians in a country rant about how great a Democracy that country has, the less of a Democracy it is.
In Europe, for example, you get British Politicians going on an one about how the country has the “Oldest Democracy in The World” (this in a country with a King who a few years ago - well, his mother - was found to actually have some power over what legislation gets passed, an unlected second chamber with members who inherit their seat from their parents and First Past The Post for Parliament) all the while in The Netherlands (who, IMHO, have probably the most Democratic system in the World, including Proportional Vote, though with a powerless King) politians pretty much never rant about the quality of their Democracy.
At least in the West, the most loud and relentless proclaimers of how great their Democracy is by a large margin are American politicians.
That’s just it, the system was created as a two-party system, and two-party is a hugely beneficial to the champions of that same system who make the laws, the same people who would have to make the law to change the system to make it harder for themselves to “win” but better for us.
You would have to have people in charge who were willing to give up their power to make things better for the people as a whole, and sadly there’s basically nobody left who gives a shit about the population as a whole. They’re all selfish as shit. About half are currently more evil, but they’re all out of touch and working for nobody but themselves and their wealthy benefactors.
It was not created as a 2-party system, there have been several other successful political parties in US history. We’ve had US presidents elected from 3 other parties plus an Independent. Federalists, Whigs, and “Democratic-Republicans” are the 3 other parties who had Presidents in the WH.
No, the executive is compartmentalized and voted for separately, so there’s no dissolution of parliament, negotiations over forming a government, etc. Seems like a small difference, but structurally it’s a large and impactful distinction.
I know and understand the difference between parliamentarism and presidentialism, but I am not talking about the election of presidents exclusively, I am talking about the political system of the country in general.
If 20~30% of the chambers are in the hands of a third party, the country becomes more plural and public debates better represent opinions and I don’t understand why that is not possible.
I understand, but how is it viable, from the standpoint of the opposition, to be anything other than a unified party in opposition if there’s no chance to bargain for a position in a coalition government, to form a coalition to win an election to make a new government, etc? That doesn’t make any sense, why would anyone split like that?
Yes, after all the answers I think I am beginning to see the problem, it is not the electoral system but your vision of it. That is why time and time again the answers are about the position of president and not about the system as a whole. You don’t care, you don’t understand that the present is the most powerful individual person, but the presidency is not the most powerful institution, the Congress and the Senate have much more power, being powerful there is much more important than putting a person in office. Not to mention the number of laws, measures and issues that do not even reach the federal level.
Americans have tried to create third parties before, but due to the electoral college and the first past the post voting system, new parties are destined to fail and not win any votes. So the current two party system is the natural state of America.
The only way to change this is to get rid of the electoral college and the FPTP system, like that’s ever going to happen.
I dont think FPTP is an issue, here in my country, despite FPTP we have seen many national parties rise, collapse since independence, regional parties’ influence in national politics also increased exponentially in recent elections. I know FPTP is kind of rotten but dont think thats stopping smaller parties to rise.
First Past the Post doesn’t guarantee complete nationwide hegemony of two parties. There can be areas where the vote is between a mainstream party and a regional party, because the other mainstream party doesn’t show up. This happens in the UK all the time.
They don’t take a lot, but those seats are enough that the big parties often have to work with them to cobble together a majority.
Nor is First Past the Post the only factor. There’s plenty of southern states that have runoff voting. Their last century of state level offices are just as filled with Democrats and Republicans as anywhere else.
The US is unique in that not only are their only two real parties, but those two parties dominate at every level of government.
Canada also has a FPTP system and we have like 5 federal parties. But it’s also a Westminster parliamentary system that allows temporary alliances, minority governments, support and supply agreements and other power-sharing arrangements.
The American system is unique in their imperial presidency and aristocratic Senate and supreme Court, where so much power is concentrated in so few people for such a long time that every election becomes a high stakes cosmic event.
You can get a successful new party but only if one of the two big ones completely self-destructs and creates a power vacuum. And even then the new party will probably be a faction of the defunct one. There definitely won’t be a three-party constellation for more than a brief period.
Well, the issue of the electoral college is something that I don’t fully understand, in the end from Europe I follow American politics relatively, but the English also have the first past the post system and they have more than one party.
Perhaps it would be necessary to start setting it up from more local elections or to the Congress/Senate, where a small but more mobilized mass could be relevant. With a relevant percentage representation in the chambers and/or state positions it could stop being crazy.
I don’t know, it’s an outside opinion, maybe it’s impossible, but if it is then American democracy is not only dysfunctional, it wouldn’t be a democracy at all, It would be a plutocracy with all the letters
The electoral college is mainly for the president. Each state is “worth” x number of electoral votes (actual people who do the real voting, they just are supposed to follow the publics vote.) so running for president becomes a game of “how many points can I gather using various states to win” instead of “how can I appeal to as many people as possible to win.” It’s a clusterfuck and it leaves candidates ignoring states they think aren’t worth spending money and time in.
Well, if that only applies at the presidential level, a party can be created that competes at the legislative and state level. When it is established with enough power at that level, running at the presidential level might not be such a risky game.
As a European I always wonder why Americans don’t create an alternative party to the Democrats
The average American is too stupid to handle more than 2 options. American’s like everything easy and straightforward. Black and white. Good and evil. They have a very simplistic world view.
I don’t know, I have never lived in the United States, but I would like to think that there are still enough intelligent people for a third party to position itself as a real alternative and end up completely replacing the Democratic Party, which will leave two parties again, now that I think it
As a European I always wonder why Americans don’t create an alternative party to the Democrats, after all it is the party that in 2016 cheated in the primaries so that Hillary would win and still lost to an idiot. If you create a real left-wing party you can seriously propose things like socialized healthcare just as the right is not shy about proposing crazy things like banning abortion.
The only difference is that they have been successful in colonizing the Republican Party and the Democratic Party is simply an outdated instrument that no longer represents its own bases.
A third party has no chance in a first past the post system. If you create an alternative party to the Democrats, you’re just making sure the Republicans win every election.
The British have a first past the post system and more than two parties, something else is wrong in that equation
USA doesn’t have a parliamentary system.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_system
But you have a parliament (congress and senate), right? Why isn’t there a third party in these chambers?
There are a few independents, most notably Bernie Sanders.
Americans are taught from elementary school that voting third party is basically a sin, its repeated on all forms of media and treated as fact for every single election regardless of the situation. When people say things like ‘America is the most propagandized country in the world’ this is part of what they’re referring to.
Americans somehow believe they’re just too different from all those countries that made things like public transport, healthcare, and more than two political parties work. They believe those things simply wont work here even if they work elsewhere.
I don’t know, I don’t deny what you say, but as I was answering to another, then the United States is not a democracy anymore, it is a plutocracy where a few elites can decide policies, but the population lacks the capacity to change the trends even if there is a broad consensus for it.
this is sad
You are correct sir.
I’ve noticed that the loudest the politicians in a country rant about how great a Democracy that country has, the less of a Democracy it is.
In Europe, for example, you get British Politicians going on an one about how the country has the “Oldest Democracy in The World” (this in a country with a King who a few years ago - well, his mother - was found to actually have some power over what legislation gets passed, an unlected second chamber with members who inherit their seat from their parents and First Past The Post for Parliament) all the while in The Netherlands (who, IMHO, have probably the most Democratic system in the World, including Proportional Vote, though with a powerless King) politians pretty much never rant about the quality of their Democracy.
At least in the West, the most loud and relentless proclaimers of how great their Democracy is by a large margin are American politicians.
That’s just it, the system was created as a two-party system, and two-party is a hugely beneficial to the champions of that same system who make the laws, the same people who would have to make the law to change the system to make it harder for themselves to “win” but better for us.
You would have to have people in charge who were willing to give up their power to make things better for the people as a whole, and sadly there’s basically nobody left who gives a shit about the population as a whole. They’re all selfish as shit. About half are currently more evil, but they’re all out of touch and working for nobody but themselves and their wealthy benefactors.
It was not created as a 2-party system, there have been several other successful political parties in US history. We’ve had US presidents elected from 3 other parties plus an Independent. Federalists, Whigs, and “Democratic-Republicans” are the 3 other parties who had Presidents in the WH.
No, the executive is compartmentalized and voted for separately, so there’s no dissolution of parliament, negotiations over forming a government, etc. Seems like a small difference, but structurally it’s a large and impactful distinction.
I know and understand the difference between parliamentarism and presidentialism, but I am not talking about the election of presidents exclusively, I am talking about the political system of the country in general. If 20~30% of the chambers are in the hands of a third party, the country becomes more plural and public debates better represent opinions and I don’t understand why that is not possible.
I understand, but how is it viable, from the standpoint of the opposition, to be anything other than a unified party in opposition if there’s no chance to bargain for a position in a coalition government, to form a coalition to win an election to make a new government, etc? That doesn’t make any sense, why would anyone split like that?
Yes, after all the answers I think I am beginning to see the problem, it is not the electoral system but your vision of it. That is why time and time again the answers are about the position of president and not about the system as a whole. You don’t care, you don’t understand that the present is the most powerful individual person, but the presidency is not the most powerful institution, the Congress and the Senate have much more power, being powerful there is much more important than putting a person in office. Not to mention the number of laws, measures and issues that do not even reach the federal level.
Americans have tried to create third parties before, but due to the electoral college and the first past the post voting system, new parties are destined to fail and not win any votes. So the current two party system is the natural state of America.
The only way to change this is to get rid of the electoral college and the FPTP system, like that’s ever going to happen.
I dont think FPTP is an issue, here in my country, despite FPTP we have seen many national parties rise, collapse since independence, regional parties’ influence in national politics also increased exponentially in recent elections. I know FPTP is kind of rotten but dont think thats stopping smaller parties to rise.
First Past the Post doesn’t guarantee complete nationwide hegemony of two parties. There can be areas where the vote is between a mainstream party and a regional party, because the other mainstream party doesn’t show up. This happens in the UK all the time.
They don’t take a lot, but those seats are enough that the big parties often have to work with them to cobble together a majority.
Nor is First Past the Post the only factor. There’s plenty of southern states that have runoff voting. Their last century of state level offices are just as filled with Democrats and Republicans as anywhere else.
The US is unique in that not only are their only two real parties, but those two parties dominate at every level of government.
Canada also has a FPTP system and we have like 5 federal parties. But it’s also a Westminster parliamentary system that allows temporary alliances, minority governments, support and supply agreements and other power-sharing arrangements.
The American system is unique in their imperial presidency and aristocratic Senate and supreme Court, where so much power is concentrated in so few people for such a long time that every election becomes a high stakes cosmic event.
Canadians were promised electoral reform recently, what happened?
Politicians didn’t keep their promises after being elected.
You can get a successful new party but only if one of the two big ones completely self-destructs and creates a power vacuum. And even then the new party will probably be a faction of the defunct one. There definitely won’t be a three-party constellation for more than a brief period.
Well, the issue of the electoral college is something that I don’t fully understand, in the end from Europe I follow American politics relatively, but the English also have the first past the post system and they have more than one party.
Perhaps it would be necessary to start setting it up from more local elections or to the Congress/Senate, where a small but more mobilized mass could be relevant. With a relevant percentage representation in the chambers and/or state positions it could stop being crazy.
I don’t know, it’s an outside opinion, maybe it’s impossible, but if it is then American democracy is not only dysfunctional, it wouldn’t be a democracy at all, It would be a plutocracy with all the letters
The electoral college is mainly for the president. Each state is “worth” x number of electoral votes (actual people who do the real voting, they just are supposed to follow the publics vote.) so running for president becomes a game of “how many points can I gather using various states to win” instead of “how can I appeal to as many people as possible to win.” It’s a clusterfuck and it leaves candidates ignoring states they think aren’t worth spending money and time in.
Well, if that only applies at the presidential level, a party can be created that competes at the legislative and state level. When it is established with enough power at that level, running at the presidential level might not be such a risky game.
The average American is too stupid to handle more than 2 options. American’s like everything easy and straightforward. Black and white. Good and evil. They have a very simplistic world view.
I don’t know, I have never lived in the United States, but I would like to think that there are still enough intelligent people for a third party to position itself as a real alternative and end up completely replacing the Democratic Party, which will leave two parties again, now that I think it