In this LSE US Centre Election Explainer, Dr Nick Anstead discusses the history, evolution and the potential future of the two party system in American politics. For more information: www.lse.ac.uk/U... blogs.lse.ac.uk...
Why is this still a thing, Americans? Vote third party. I'm from Norway, where we have 8 parties. One party will rarely have more than 50% of the votes, and so this makes them dependent on working together with other parties to become a majority. So the outcome of an election can be for example that the conservative party have to work together with the green party and the anti-immigrant party to be in power. This is a good thing because every major issue is being representet and listened to.
also in the USA there is a bizarre, medieval-style, dualistic mentality whereby one ideology ( Either 'conservatism' or 'liberalism' ) represents a force of good and another represents a force of evil. Quite literally. And they harbour arbitrary political opinions on issues which are irrelevant to eachother. So in the republican party there is nationalism and free, unregulated markets. WTF? How are those married? In NZ the nationalist party [New Zealand First] tries to sabotage the free trade parties [Association of Consumers and Taxpayers] or [The National Party]. They are bitter rivals! And the Christian party [United Future] is different again.
The primary reason 3rd parties don't work in the U.S. is because of the Winner-Take-All System we use for our election process. You may have a percentage of the popular vote; however, the popular vote doesn't determine our presidency. Each state has a specific number of electors who vote for each district within the state and the majority of votes in a state take all of those electoral votes. Because the two main parties are so large an independent party, will not get the necessary majority to be able to take that states electorate, resulting in the two party system. This is why Hillary Clinton had the popular vote but lost the election; because that ~2%-3% popular vote weren't located in a consolidated area to shift an individual states electoral college.
Gul Ananas Norway has a different electoral system. The proportional representation combined with a four percent threshold (+exceptions as MDG won seats without getting 4 percent) gives smaller parties advantages as votes for them are not counted as "wasted". And although Norway has a multi party system, it's still viable that there are two separate blocs (red of Ap, Center Party and Left aligned with the Red Party + blue of Høyre, FrP and Venstre aligned with Christian Democrats), which is quite similar to Sweden and especially Denmark. You basically have a two coalitions system, the major difference to the US is that the different political wings are organized in caucuses (Blue Dogs, Progressives...) and not in separate parties.
A true multi party system requires proportional representation. The US like the UK only has single-winner-district distorted misrepresentation so a vote for a third party is a wasted vote for a "spoiler": it goes nowhere and elects nobody.
When you say "there is no equivalent to a far right party in the United States that you find in European countries," you're comparing apples to oranges. The Republican Party is FAR more like UKIP than the Conservative Party in the UK. Most European far right parties align better with the Republican Party than do mainstream conservative European parties. It's just based on the fact that the US electorate is more right leaning.
Two thoughts: 1) We have additional parties, but they fail primarily because the momentarily successful ones are driven by a personality or an issue. When the personality leaves the stage, or the issue fades or is in some way co-opted by one of the two major parties, the rationale for its existence evaporates. Consider the Reform Party, which resulted from Perot's 19 percent performance in 1992 and was driven by concern for the national debt. Perot left the stage, and concern for the debt ebbed after Congress maintained budget surpluses between 1998 and 2001. By 2008 the Reform Party was effectively dead. 2) The two major parties have factions within them that represent constituencies that have concluded they would have less policy success on the issues most important to them outside the party than within. That's primarily the reason you don't see a thriving Green Party or Constitution Party, because they essentially exists as the environmental faction of the Democratic Party and the conservative faction of the Republican Party.
And Brazil 🇧🇷 is also a presidential system. Many people get Proportional Representation voting system and a Parliamentary system of government confused.
If Washington and Adams were advising American voters not to start or support political parties, what should we call the voters to whom they were giving this advice? I would call them independent voters because they were voters created by the writing and adoption of the Constitution of the United States and the constitutions of the states that held the elections. They did not not belong to political parties. They had a Constitutional basis for their existence, something political parties will never have. As George Washington once said, political parties are "self-created societies". What Democrats and Republicans are neglecting to mention right now is that the latest statistics show that 49% of American voters are registered outside of the two-party system, up from a single digit percentage when John F. Kennedy was President. When Dwight D. Eisenhower was President, over half of American voters were Democrats, 54%. Thirty six percent were Republicans. The two-party system is in desperate circumstances. By the time the 2024 election takes place, the two-party system will be a minority in American government.
Krists Saulītis it's the election method. First Past The Post. It always creates a two party system. However it is cracking in the seams due to internet and information age.
The main reason for it is because of first past the post voting. Meaning if the president/senator/etc wins 51% of the vote, they win 100% of the electorates. This means a third party has to win over 50% of a state to actually get any electoral votes/get a representative in congress. If we divided the electorates, it would allow a 3rd or 4th party to actually gain some seats in congress/elect a president/etc
@@robertbutchko5066 ... consequently the US system is hyperpartisan with only two viable parties trying to undermine each other (hence the shutdowns), and hyper-regional because each district only gets a single winner which leaves nearly half the voter's votes in any one district wasted and ineffective.
It’s kind of like going to an ice cream store with your friends to choose the best ice cream flavor. Multi-party countries are stores with many different flavors and flavor variations, and 2 party countries are like an ice cream stand with just vanilla and chocolate. If you and your friends want to pick your favorite, it’s easier for you to pick between 2 flavors then a dozen.
The President doesn't own the House. A better question would be "Why can't the newly elected House appoint a new President?" Indeed, the US would work better without a President because the President is just a single person so can not hope to represent Americans democratically like an assembly of representatives could, and he has far too much power for a single man. Assemblies at least have the possibility of being elected by proportional representation but a single winner like the President can not so that office is inherently undemocratic - it's more like flipping a coin - even worse given the decidedly undemocratic and distorted "Electoral College".
This should not be called 2 party system, this should be called 2 party dictatorship, it is same as calling china one party system instead of dictatorship Yes third parties are allowed to run but north korea also allows that
0:47 that bit about "southern voters" really diminishing for both 1) republicans, for applying some historic stereotype to modern day and 2) democrats, who are from southern states.
Demonstrate vs Republican...they won't allow third parties. They will tolerate one another though. You think this isn't the case...then you don't pay attention...to US news.
We have no Progress with existing two parties. Rapid evolving tech./science does not define Progress in my opinion. The stalemate created by the great divide between the two parties is the source of lack of Progress, in my opinion. In fact, I think we're experiencing regress, instead. Isn't that somewhat akin to the definition of insanity? Same thinking but expecting change?
Any nation which relies heavily on militarism, conflict, wars, destructive acts, etc to keep its economy afloat is not civil, in my opinion. It is simply a destructive barbarian state with fancy technology.
The "Democratic Party" perhaps was, at one time, as you say, a coalition of workers, etc. But now it is simply a ruse party, just as the Republic Party is a ruse party. Neither represent those whom they claim to represent. And both are so out-of-touch with their constituents and the public in general it's mindboggling! We've got people starving, dying or otherwise wasting away in homeless camps across America, and the leadership considers fighting/killing people in foreign countries the way forward. Unemployment, underemployment, massive drug addiction.. So let's go overseas somewhere and kill and destroy things..
The idea is that European parties are rigid on their ideals thus needing more parties to cover the gaps, where the two parties in America are very flexible and malleable.
As in the establishments gets all the say. Flexible is not one of them when the people cant pick their political representative without the deep state getting involved
More like the us citizens are being put into a you're with us or against us situation where they have to have identical view to one of the parties or they are spineless cowards. That creates a need for your political OPINIONS that you were TOUGHT to become a part of your identity as a conservative or as a liberal.
what an idealest lol, horrible video...two party system needs to be replaced with proportional representation, no more of this winner takes all partisan political BS
Democrats are radical left in social issues and republicans are right wing on social issues But the two are centrist on economical issues (neoliberals)
They're interchangeable twin ruling parties, happily handing power back and forth while ignoring we the people because there's no real choice and every vote doesn't count anyway. They'll both always be bad together because inasmuch as our voting system remains a sham, dirty money is happy to fill the power vacuum.
