Presidential Election Question

[dank69]

You forgot to add damn it after the yes.

Haha, Lieberman was such a sellout.

 

[glenn1]

First past the post voting is why.

If it weren't for the fact that politicians are in charge of the political process, we could change to a transferable vote system. This won't happen, though, because it allows third parties the ability to both run for an office, without also acting as a spoiler, which both political parties depend on.

Canada and the UK have both first-past-post voting and multiple parties so your "why" is dubious. And aside from acting as a safety valve for the disaffected to vote for politically untenable positions (like the neo-nazis and nativists do for afforementioned Jorge Haider and Austrian Freedom Party) they basically serve no greater role than do gadfly candidates in the U.S. or other nations. Encouraging more of the Dixiecrats, etc. to run isn't desireable is putting it mildly.

 

[fskimospy]

Canada and the UK have both first-past-post voting and multiple parties so your "why" is dubious. And aside from acting as a safety valve for the disaffected to vote for politically untenable positions (like the neo-nazis and nativists do for afforementioned Jorge Haider and Austrian Freedom Party) they basically serve no greater role than do gadfly candidates in the U.S. or other nations. Encouraging more of the Dixiecrats, etc. to run isn't desireable is putting it mildly.

Generally in any UK electoral district power goes between two competitive parties there. It's rare to see a true 3 party contest.

Regardless, the rule isn't absolute as there are other things that influence things, it is a strong predictor however.

 

[nickqt]

Canada and the UK have both first-past-post voting and multiple parties so your "why" is dubious. And aside from acting as a safety valve for the disaffected to vote for politically untenable positions (like the neo-nazis and nativists do for afforementioned Jorge Haider and Austrian Freedom Party) they basically serve no greater role than do gadfly candidates in the U.S. or other nations. Encouraging more of the Dixiecrats, etc. to run isn't desireable is putting it mildly.

You're comparing apples to soccer balls by comparing US elections to parliamentary elections.

OP asked why there is only 1 Democrat and 1 Republican in US elections.

The answer is first past the post voting. If the candidate with the highest number of votes is the winner, then running two candidates from the same party substantially increases the chances that the party running two candidates will lose. Splitting votes between the same party is inherently counterproductive in a first past the post voting system.*

The why is because the US has two established parties that exist not in a vacuum but in a first past the post voting system.

*The US and states could adopt a Single Transferable Vote system, where you can vote for a 1st choice and a 2nd choice; if your first choice is eliminated, your vote flows to your second choice automatically.

1. This allows for third parties that aren't simply "spoilers", as I can vote for a third party candidate as my first choice (who has a small chance of winning), and then selecting a major party candidate as second choice, knowing that the major party candidate of my choice will get my vote if the third party candidate doesn't win.

2. This also allows, for example, two major party candidates from the same party in a single general election without one acting as a spoiler for the party itself, as someone could choose Party X candidate 1 as first choice, and Party X candidate 2 as second choice, without it acting as a spoiler giving Party Y candidate an advantage.

So yes, the first past the post voting system is the answer and the why, of OP's question.

The reason the US won't be moving towards the Single Transferable Vote system is because the two major parties of US politics control whether or not we get to vote on changing that system (Representative Democracy, as defined by the Constitution) and neither party wants additional competition...which I think is a pretty obvious statement.

 

[Victorian Gray]

For those that don't know, in Canada the NDP Party is the Elizabeth Warren analogue (left wing populists who worry about "fairness" and equality) whereas Liberals (center-left) are Bill Clinton style "New Democrats" and destroyed in the last election. You can argue that having the left/right intramural discussions be done via party vs. primaries is an improved approach but ultimately it comes down to the same damn thing.

Oh my, you don't know much about our politics or parties do you?

btw, here is the destruction of a party (to the point that it no longer exists as it was replaced by a new Conservative Party):

"With his popularity slumping, Mulroney resigned in February 1993. He was succeeded by Kim Campbell, who became the first female prime minister in Canadian history. Campbell and the Conservatives were annihilated in the October 1993 elections, retaining only two seats in the House of Commons. The Liberal party won 177 seats to take control of the government, and Jean Chretien became prime minister."

The party had, before the election, 156 seats.

What happened to the Liberals more recently was a slap on the wrist from the public.

 

[glenn1]

Oh my, you don't know much about our politics or parties do you?

btw, here is the destruction of a party (to the point that it no longer exists as it was replaced by a new Conservative Party):

"With his popularity slumping, Mulroney resigned in February 1993. He was succeeded by Kim Campbell, who became the first female prime minister in Canadian history. Campbell and the Conservatives were annihilated in the October 1993 elections, retaining only two seats in the House of Commons. The Liberal party won 177 seats to take control of the government, and Jean Chretien became prime minister."

The party had, before the election, 156 seats.

What happened to the Liberals more recently was a slap on the wrist from the public.

I thought we were talking about now instead of a generation ago. Whether Liberals being reduced to 36/308 seats I'll defer to your Canadian expertise about why that's a "wrist slap.". Either way with Conservatives holding 162 ridings I doubt they much care what adjective you use.

 

[Victorian Gray]

I thought we were talking about now instead of a generation ago. Whether Liberals being reduced to 36/308 seats I'll defer to your Canadian expertise about why that's a "wrist slap.". Either way with Conservatives holding 162 ridings I doubt they much care what adjective you use.

One more time. The present Conservative Party of Canada is *not* the old Progressive Conservative Party that ended up dissolved after the '93 election. It disappeared. It's not pining for the fjords, it's dead. The 'people' spoke and it was gone. The Liberals, on the other hand, have a damn good chance to end up as the governing party after the next election. Can you see the difference?

And your assessments of where the Liberals and NDP are ideologically is not particularly accurate either. For example the Liberals have run, and exercised power, from all over the political spectrum. And, I suspect they are the party you would find Warren a member of if she was Canadian.

As for the NDP, they were an outright Socialist party for most of their existence but have gradually morphed into something akin to the 'social democrats' of Europe.

As I said, you don't understand Canada's politics.

 

[glenn1]

One more time. The present Conservative Party of Canada is *not* the old Progressive Conservative Party that ended up dissolved after the '93 election. It disappeared. It's not pining for the fjords, it's dead. The 'people' spoke and it was gone. The Liberals, on the other hand, have a damn good chance to end up as the governing party after the next election. Can you see the difference?

And your assessments of where the Liberals and NDP are ideologically is not particularly accurate either. For example the Liberals have run, and exercised power, from all over the political spectrum. And, I suspect they are the party you would find Warren a member of if she was Canadian.

As for the NDP, they were an outright Socialist party for most of their existence but have gradually morphed into something akin to the 'social democrats' of Europe.

As I said, you don't understand Canada's politics.

Do you understand what the word "analogue" even means?

 

[Victorian Gray]

Do you understand what the word "analogue" even means?

Yes I do, thanks for asking.

And, you still don't know what you're talking about regarding Canadian politics/parties.

 

[glenn1]

Yes I do, thanks for asking.
U
And, you still don't know what you're talking about regarding Canadian politics/parties.

Well then you don't know what you are talking about regarding American politics.

 

[nickqt]

Well then you don't know what you are talking about regarding American politics.

That's not how reasoning works.

For example, Liberals in Canada are more like Warren/Sanders here in the US, whereas most Democrats here in the US would fit into the Conservative party in Canada very nicely.

 

[glenn1]

That's not how reasoning works.

For example, Liberals in Canada are more like Warren/Sanders here in the US, whereas most Democrats here in the US would fit into the Conservative party in Canada very nicely.

I was talking about their relative positioning on the political spectrum of Canada and relating them to equivalently positioned American figures. From left to right in Canada its NDP, Libs, Cons. In America its Repubs, centrist/"New Democrats," then then the Warren/Sanders wing of Dems. The entire point is you don't need additional formal parties to have political spectrum represented in a country.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Well then you don't know what you are talking about regarding American politics.

Actually, I do have a pretty good understanding of the political system and parties in the US but that's because I'm reasonably well educated (lot's of American history was part of that) and interested in American politics enough to learn more (and follow the US news most of my life).

But, given that I tend not to say too much about the US political system, the level of that knowledge might not be all that obvious.

On the other hand, your short description of Canada's parties and politics show us that you really don't know much about our system or parties at all. That's based on the simple fact that you were pretty much completely wrong in your descriptions/assessment.

Your best bet at this point might be to drop it and take the time to educate yourself, eh?

 

[glenn1]

You're comparing apples to soccer balls by comparing US elections to parliamentary elections.

OP asked why there is only 1 Democrat and 1 Republican in US elections.

The answer is first past the post voting. If the candidate with the highest number of votes is the winner, then running two candidates from the same party substantially increases the chances that the party running two candidates will lose. Splitting votes between the same party is inherently counterproductive in a first past the post voting system.*

The why is because the US has two established parties that exist not in a vacuum but in a first past the post voting system.

*The US and states could adopt a Single Transferable Vote system, where you can vote for a 1st choice and a 2nd choice; if your first choice is eliminated, your vote flows to your second choice automatically.

1. This allows for third parties that aren't simply "spoilers", as I can vote for a third party candidate as my first choice (who has a small chance of winning), and then selecting a major party candidate as second choice, knowing that the major party candidate of my choice will get my vote if the third party candidate doesn't win.

2. This also allows, for example, two major party candidates from the same party in a single general election without one acting as a spoiler for the party itself, as someone could choose Party X candidate 1 as first choice, and Party X candidate 2 as second choice, without it acting as a spoiler giving Party Y candidate an advantage.

So yes, the first past the post voting system is the answer and the why, of OP's question.

The reason the US won't be moving towards the Single Transferable Vote system is because the two major parties of US politics control whether or not we get to vote on changing that system (Representative Democracy, as defined by the Constitution) and neither party wants additional competition...which I think is a pretty obvious statement.

Even if the U.S. moved to your preferred method, we would still wind up with two primary parties which perhaps have to form a coalition government with smaller parties who could play kingmaker roles. While as in Canada which two parties they were might change from time to time, it still basically always comes down to which wing can capture more of the centrist vote. It makes precious little difference whether a coalition is formed after an election as typical in places like Europe, Israel, etc. or beforehand as typical in the U.S. via a primary process which determines which wing of a primary party will be dominant and have its preferred candidate run in the general election.

If you or anyone else can show an exa

 

[glenn1]

Actually, I do have a pretty good understanding of the political system and parties in the US but that's because I'm reasonably well educated (lot's of American history was part of that) and interested in American politics enough to learn more (and follow the US news most of my life).

But, given that I tend not to say too much about the US political system, the level of that knowledge might not be all that obvious.

On the other hand, your short description of Canada's parties and politics show us that you really don't know much about our system or parties at all. That's based on the simple fact that you were pretty much completely wrong in your descriptions/assessment.

Your best bet at this point might be to drop it and take the time to educate yourself, eh?

Okay, sure. Maybe you ought to tell all your Canadian media sources they're wrong about the party alignments then also.

 

[Victorian Gray]

I was talking about their relative positioning on the political spectrum of Canada and relating them to equivalently positioned American figures. From left to right in Canada its NDP, Libs, Cons. In America its Repubs, centrist/"New Democrats," then then the Warren/Sanders wing of Dems. The entire point is you don't need additional formal parties to have political spectrum represented in a country.

That's were you went wrong, your assessments were incorrect. The parties aren't equivalent as nickqt and I have pointed out. The Liberal Party aren't the same as Democrats and the NDP is not the equivilent of Warren and Saunders (Warren would most likely be a Liberal and Saunders would be on the 'right' wing of the NDP or, the 'left' wing of the Liberal party. Hell, even our Conservative party isn't really the equivalent of the Republicans.

Your comparisons just don't work in other than the broadest of broad comparisons.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Okay, sure. Maybe you ought to tell all your Canadian media sources they're wrong about the party alignments then also.

Yeah, it's the media that determines the meaning of politics and party in Canada.

 

[glenn1]

That's were you went wrong, your assessments were incorrect. The parties aren't equivalent as nickqt and I have pointed out. The Liberal Party aren't the same as Democrats and the NDP is not the equivilent of Warren and Saunders (Warren would most likely be a Liberal and Saunders would be on the 'right' wing of the NDP or, the 'left' wing of the Liberal party. Hell, even our Conservative party isn't really the equivalent of the Republicans.

Your comparisons just don't work in other than the broadest of broad comparisons.

You cannot possibly be that daft. You just agreed with me on the relative positioning and yet are still arguing about which party a particular figure would align to as if politicians don't change party affiliations depending on the prevailing conditions. In Canada as the U.S. the stable alignment is one governing party and one recognized official opposition party. Again, multiple parties are a distinction without a difference since the secondary parties are going to align with one of the main parties anyway.

 

[Victorian Gray]

You cannot possibly be that daft. You just agreed with me on the relative positioning and yet are still arguing about which party a particular figure would align to as if politicians don't change party affiliations depending on the prevailing conditions. In Canada as the U.S. the stable alignment is one governing party and one recognized official opposition party. Again, multiple parties are a distinction without a difference since the secondary parties are going to align with one of the main parties anyway.

1) I didn't agree with you re relative positioning of the parties.
2) We've had any number of stable minority governments throughout the existence of this country (including 2 under the present Prime Minister) and that was with no other party's support - they were not coalition govt's)
3) Our parties pretty much despise each other and tend *not* to align with one another either federally or provincially. In fact, the provincial parties in several provinces actually don't even have much in the way of connections to the federal party of the same name.

Seriously, you should stop as you really don't know what you're talking about here.

 

[glenn1]

1) I didn't agree with you re relative positioning of the parties.
2) We've had any number of stable minority governments throughout the existence of this country (including 2 under the present Prime Minister) and that was with no other party's support - they were not coalition govt's)
3) Our parties pretty much despise each other and tend *not* to align with one another either federally or provincially. In fact, the provincial parties in several provinces actually don't even have much in the way of connections to the federal party of the same name.

Seriously, you should stop as you really don't know what you're talking about here.

Okay fine, you win. The political parties in Canada don't align left to right. Minority governments don't rely on the alignment of smaller parties to them to avoid a no confidence vote (you do know the difference between align with and form coalition with, correct?). And I said anything at all about parties at federal vs. lower levels.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Okay fine, you win. The political parties in Canada don't align left to right. Minority governments don't rely on the alignment of smaller parties to them to avoid a no confidence vote (you do know the difference between align with and form coalition with, correct?). And I said anything at all about parties at federal vs. lower levels.

Have a nice evening.

 

[norseamd]

American politics is the least sophisticated politics on the planet. Adding a third candidate is too complex so it fails constantly, despite the outrageously positive effect it would actually have if it were to be successful.

Will be interesting to see if the increasing Mexican population will lead to a religiously conservative and economically liberal party in the next few decades. Conservative Democrats and religious conservatives could benefit although I would probably hate it.

 

[cbrunny]

I was talking about their relative positioning on the political spectrum of Canada and relating them to equivalently positioned American figures. From left to right in Canada its NDP, Libs, Cons. In America its Repubs, centrist/"New Democrats," then then the Warren/Sanders wing of Dems. The entire point is you don't need additional formal parties to have political spectrum represented in a country.

You have no freaking clue about Canadian politics. Stop acting like you know anything at all. All of your posts in this thread are complete nonsense.

 

[cbrunny]

You cannot possibly be that daft. You just agreed with me on the relative positioning and yet are still arguing about which party a particular figure would align to as if politicians don't change party affiliations depending on the prevailing conditions. In Canada as the U.S. the stable alignment is one governing party and one recognized official opposition party. Again, multiple parties are a distinction without a difference since the secondary parties are going to align with one of the main parties anyway.

This is completely false and does not happen anywhere in Canada.

 

[glenn1]

This is completely false and does not happen anywhere in Canada.

For fuck sake now you're just making shit up. That exact situation happened with the Ontario Liberal government between 1985 and 1987. NDP made formal agreement to support Libs for two years in return for legislative compromises.

As for the bigger point, you're making an argument without a distinction. Call it alignment, call it acquiescence, whatever you want to call it a minority government without the support of enough minority parties to pass legislation and avoid a no-confidence vote is not stable by definition.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/when-the-majority-doesn-t-rule-1.728726

For any government to work, it needs to be able to pass legislation. A minority government can't survive unless it can secure enough support from opposition parties — which comes at a price.