Why is the US a two-party system?

[Gyrene]

I just got out of my poly sci class, and our professor posed a question that kept us in discussion for the entire hour and a half. Being an election year, I figured this would be a good question to pose to the P&N people. Why is the US a two-party system? Why aren't we like Italy, which changes so often I can't give an exact number? I'll be very impressed if someone can get this correct.

 

[Czar]

I think its because of the never ending choice of choosing the lesser of two evils so people vote for the one most likely to win to stop someone else from wining.

 

[Gyrene]

Originally posted by: Czar
I think its because of the never ending choice of choosing the lesser of two evils so people vote for the one most likely to win to stop someone else from wining.

Nope.
Though that was one of the guesses.

 

[EagleKeeper]

The government is not a forced two party system.

The party types have changed over the years according to attitudes. Originally there were the Wigs & Federals. The general consensus of a two party system came from the ideas of those that were pro-british style of government and those that rejected it.

Splinter groups would be "bribed" or their ideas absorbed.

The current political funding mechanism ensures that current outsiders will have a hard time getting funds and media attention. Keeps the status quo.

 

[b0mbrman]

Doesn't keep the status quo but keeps changes to it slow-coming...so the face of gov't doesn't respond to fads...

 

[Gyrene]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
The government is not a forced two party system.

The party types have changed over the years according to attitudes. Originally there were the Wigs & Federals. The general consensus of a two party system came from the ideas of those that were pro-british style of government and those that rejected it.

Splinter groups would be "bribed" or their ideas absorbed.

The current political funding mechanism ensures that current outsiders will have a hard time getting funds and media attention. Keeps the status quo.

While many ideas of our government came from Britain, that's not the correct answer. There is a more underlying answer. It's not forced, but it's unavoidable.

 

[b0mbrman]

Uh...nothing complicated about it.

Imagine an election in the United States with three candidates along the political spectrum:

-L--C--R-

Each candidate gets 1/3 of the vote...until L gets smart:

---LC--R-

Now L gets 4/9 of the vote, C gets 2/9, and R gets 1/3. Hooray for L...until R gets smart:

---LCR---

Now L and R each get 4/9 of the vote and C gets 1/9. Now, C knows it has almost no chance of winning so he either decides which candidate he likes best and throws his support behind him or he's convinced through some sort of payoff...possibly a cabinet position or the promise of incorporating some of C's wacky ideas into the new government.

In other countries, people vote for parties and each party gets the fraction of parliament seats equal to the ratio of total votes that party got...and the party with the most votes gets to pick the prime minister.

There are also other ways to pick leaders like monarchy or military control. Anyhow...

Cheers

 

[beer]

The existance of the electoral college, where states give all their electoral votes to a candidate who many only win by 1%, rather than plurality of popular vote, is the main reason behind the two party system.

 

[Gyrene]

Originally posted by: beer
The existance of the electoral college, where states give all their electoral votes to a candidate who many only win by 1%, rather than plurality of popular vote, is the main reason behind the two party system.

Very close. It's not so much the electoral college, but you're on the right track.

 

[Strk]

Italy has also had over 50 governments in 50 years. Israel is similar to Italy, which is not good because it requires coalition governments, which does not allow for a very stable system.

Also, France, England and to a lesser extent Germany(although they do have fairly popular third parties compared to our limited few) are, for the most part, a two party systems.

It's just how people are; not exactly an explanation, but it is just the way it works out.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: dtyn

Originally posted by: beer
The existance of the electoral college, where states give all their electoral votes to a candidate who many only win by 1%, rather than plurality of popular vote, is the main reason behind the two party system.

Very close. It's not so much the electoral college, but you're on the right track.

Electoral college type system is not a US only thing.

 

[Gyrene]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Uh...nothing complicated about it.

Imagine an election in the United States with three candidates along the political spectrum:

-L--C--R-

Each candidate gets 1/3 of the vote...until L gets smart:

---LC--R-

Now L gets 4/9 of the vote, C gets 2/9, and R gets 1/3. Hooray for L...until R gets smart:

---LCR---

Now L and R each get 4/9 of the vote and C gets 1/9. Now, C knows it has almost no chance of winning so he either decides which candidate he likes best and throws his support behind him or he's convinced through some sort of payoff...possibly a cabinet position or the promise of incorporating some of C's wacky ideas into the new government.

In other countries, people vote for parties and each party gets the fraction of parliament seats equal to the ratio of total votes that party got...and the party with the most votes gets to pick the prime minister.

There are also other ways to pick leaders like monarchy or military control. Anyhow...

Cheers

But why was there the development of the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists beginning before the first election? Not quite the right answer.

 

[Gyrene]

Originally posted by: Strk
Italy has also had over 50 governments in 50 years. Israel is similar to Italy, which is not good because it requires coalition governments, which does not allow for a very stable system.

Also, France, England and to a lesser extent Germany(although they do have fairly popular third parties compared to our limited few) are, for the most part, a two party systems.

It's just how people are; not exactly an explanation, but it is just the way it works out.

That doesn't explain why we are a two-party system.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Unless the constitution specifies that we must have a two-party system, then any correct answer is just academic conjecture.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: dtyn

Originally posted by: Strk
Italy has also had over 50 governments in 50 years. Israel is similar to Italy, which is not good because it requires coalition governments, which does not allow for a very stable system.

Also, France, England and to a lesser extent Germany(although they do have fairly popular third parties compared to our limited few) are, for the most part, a two party systems.

It's just how people are; not exactly an explanation, but it is just the way it works out.

That doesn't explain why we are a two-party system.

I know, but unfortunately there is no real answer. It just so happens that is how populations often work. I guess we are all just simple folk who are easily divided by simple things

 

[Gyrene]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: dtyn

Originally posted by: Strk
Italy has also had over 50 governments in 50 years. Israel is similar to Italy, which is not good because it requires coalition governments, which does not allow for a very stable system.

Also, France, England and to a lesser extent Germany(although they do have fairly popular third parties compared to our limited few) are, for the most part, a two party systems.

It's just how people are; not exactly an explanation, but it is just the way it works out.

That doesn't explain why we are a two-party system.

I know, but unfortunately there is no real answer. It just so happens that is how populations often work. I guess we are all just simple folk who are easily divided by simple things

There is a real answer, and it was predicted in 16th century France, and carried out with the creation of the United States. There, I gave you a hint.

 

[b0mbrman]

Well Duverger certainly agrees. And that's good enough for me

 

[b0mbrman]

...or do I need to speak the actual words "First-past-the-post" to be right?

 

[Gyrene]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Well Duverger certainly agrees. And that's good enough for me

AHHHH!!!!!! Good for you!
Duverger predicted that single member districs will invariably perpetuate two party dominance.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: dtyn

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Well Duverger certainly agrees. And that's good enough for me

AHHHH!!!!!! Good for you!
Duverger predicted that single member districs will invariably perpetuate two party dominance.

England uses single-member districts and has growing third parties, although they are mostly nationalist parties in Scotland, Ulster and Wales.(mostly in Scotland)

Germany and France have a mixed system though.

 

[Gyrene]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: dtyn

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Well Duverger certainly agrees. And that's good enough for me

AHHHH!!!!!! Good for you!
Duverger predicted that single member districs will invariably perpetuate two party dominance.

England uses single-member districts and has growing third parties, although they are mostly nationalist parties in Scotland, Ulster and Wales.(mostly in Scotland)

Germany and France have a mixed system though.

Must be a majority of single-member districts. There are periods where third parties emerge (i.e. Knownothing party, Bullmoose party, etc.), but overall we remain a two party system.

 

[myusername]

And here I thought that the first response by czar was adequately descriptive of SMDP ...

then you suggest a condition *prior* to any elections ...

Thought maybe you were going to say because the parties formed in a socioeconomic structure that had no middle class to speak of, resulting in a manichean view of politics.

Where would we all be without google

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: dtyn

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: dtyn

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Well Duverger certainly agrees. And that's good enough for me

AHHHH!!!!!! Good for you!
Duverger predicted that single member districs will invariably perpetuate two party dominance.

England uses single-member districts and has growing third parties, although they are mostly nationalist parties in Scotland, Ulster and Wales.(mostly in Scotland)

Germany and France have a mixed system though.

Must be a majority of single-member districts. There are periods where third parties emerge (i.e. Knownothing party, Bullmoose party, etc.), but overall we remain a two party system.

I'm aware of what we are, but England is a single member district system and they have growing third parties.(but like I said, these are mostly nationalist parties focused in those regions.)

 

[Gyrene]

Originally posted by: myusername
And here I thought that the first response by czar was adequately descriptive of SMDP ...

then you suggest a condition *prior* to any elections ...

Thought maybe you were going to say because the parties formed in a socioeconomic structure that had no middle class to speak of, resulting in a manichean view of politics.

Where would we all be without google

Um, I was waiting for the key word "Durverger" or "single party district perpetuate two party dominance," not "the lesser of two evils." Google wouldn't help you on this question.

 

[b0mbrman]

Okay...well this is fun...now the next question:

What's the effect of giving each state X+2 electoral votes?