Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
There was no discrete, deliberate act of collusion that set the two-party system in stone; it grew organically over the lifetime of the Union.
If you want corruption and backroom dealings, it's worth noting that neither major party had more than pro-forma primaries until the mid to late 20th century, selecting their candidates with internal committees that had no accountability whatsoever. The current primary system is far more transparent than it's been at any other time in history.
The idea that minor, local parties would do a better job of representing voters is naive, since large, national groups offer economies of scale in politics just as they do in industry, and the natural evolution of these small groups is to merge along common interests. Standing against that tide requires an active effort by some controlling agency, which could itself be a target for corruption.
In any given election, the FPTP system guarantees that only two parties can functionally compete, so the idea that you could have Democrats versus Republicans in Pennsylvania's 10th district and Whigs vs. Tories in Pennsylvania's 11th district is just bizarre, especially as those parties would also be competing for gubernatorial, Senate, and Presidential seats, so they'd either have to form alliances or accept that only the strongest two could have any hope of winning. Thus, the strongest parties at the federal level would trickle down to and increase their influence at the state level, which would in turn absorb the district parties. Coalitions would turn into national parties, which is, to my understanding, exactly what happened in the early U.S.
edited 17th Jun '16 12:25:25 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
The US eschews regionalist parties because there's nothing to be gained from being the minority partner in a coalition. No party wants to be 15% of 50%-plus-one. They want to be the majority, and keep infighting out of the spotlight.
edited 17th Jun '16 1:01:34 PM by CrimsonZephyr
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."The US has 100 parties, fifty Republican and fifty Democratic. One for each state, in fact. And the extreme degree of party discipline we've seen lately is highly unusual.
For example, the Alaska Republican Party was firmly against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, back when I was a kid, that was a huge issue and the national Republicans were gung-ho about doing it. (Not, ironically, for environmentalist reasons - it was a states' rights issue, or "Alaska really doesn't like the amount of our land and mineral wealth that the feds claimed for themselves.")
![]()
![]()
Another reason why third parties try to shoot for the top, even when it would be wiser to concentrate their lesser resources at state and local levels. Things could be shaken up, if only the people dedicated to these things would think a little bit more about the long game.
![]()
People had a discussion, that's what happened. That kind of comment you made offers nothing to it.
Why? It works in other countries.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranUnited States is not other countries, in case you haven't noticed.
edited 17th Jun '16 2:09:18 PM by flameboy21th
Non Indicative UsernameI just described why. Those minor local parties get absorbed in the large national parties that must form in order to win the national elections.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Normally, the lower the level of politics, the more likely you'll get either independents or really weird minor parties hanging around, if only because the federal parties aren't really going to care about who's elected in a tiny town in the middle of nowhere, especially since state politics can totally override city and town politics. (Which is really hypocritical for people who constantly cry about "States Rights" and then turn around and squash municipal rights.)
Well, it's certainly not a requirement that they get absorbed, given all the little parties that appear to be operating in New York. Although they certainly tend to ban together and support particular candidates. (I think mostly Democrat but I'm working with a slightly fuzzy memory here.)
Although this tendency to ban together behind a candidate from one of the big two may be what Fighteer means by getting absorbed. They still exist as independent parties, but don't always or rarely run candidates of their own, instead going for one of the two major options.
Speaking of third parties, Samantha Bee took a trip to the Libertarian National Convention in Orlando
. It's...uh, interesting.
Pweigle, the whole "learn to live with it" isn't exactly the best option in some cases. And this guy apparently feels this is one of those cases. (It is freaking expensive to live in New York.)
Of course, New York's parties all seem to be very specific to New York itself, and its way of allowing parties to bundle together may be unique to the city itself, but I think the Working Family Party possibly has wider appeal in the nation.
C-span allowed one man doing a strip tease to be aired live. Let it not be said that Libertarians don't occasionally have a sense of humor.
edited 17th Jun '16 3:12:36 PM by AceofSpades
@Fighteer: To counterpoint you: The UK has FPTP. They also have four major parties and a host of minors, and while they do have two major major parties, the Liberal Democrats did make a coalition with the Conservatives in 2010, and a Labour government with SNP supply was the odds-on favorite in the last election (except that Conservatives managed to survive by cannibalizing their coalition).
So FPTP, combined with regional interests pulling in different directions, can still lead to multiple parties through multiple two-party contests. Two national big tents are not a guaranteed result (except specifically for Presidential elections, which may or may not have anything to do with downticket results).

Mark Cuban
donated a million dollars to the Dallas Police in order to increase their presence in LGBT neighbourhoods after what happened in Orlando.