Will the US turn into a 3 Party System?

[GWB]

Nader Wins Endorsement From Reform Party (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&ncid=696&e=4&u=/ap/20040513/ap_on_el_pr/nader)

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Let's see, the reform Party has run Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan, and now Ralph Nader.

If you ask me, they're a political party without an underlying political philosophy.

FYI - the third largest political party in the US, based upon number of elected officials at all levels of government nationwide is the Libertarian Party. Regardless of your opinion about the LP's philosophy, it's hardly ambiguous. The Reform Party would have to gain much clarity to even approach being ambiguous.

[smudgex68]

I'm aware of Party and Empire, which is the third party system?

[Ed Miller]

The Constitution virtually ensures that we will continue to have only a two party system.

[smudgex68]

Reassuring, I thought I may have been missing out on some bonuses

[MMMMMM]

This is why I think you and I should vote Libertarian if it looks like the results in our respective states are a lock anyway without our votes. Just maybe eventually the Libertarian Party could become a true challenger.

Also, if you register Libertarian, can you vote in their primary? Does the LP offer choices of candidates in primary? Maybe a viable candidate might emerge who isn't too thrilled with their hands-off official stance in the face of Islamic terrorism.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Huh? The whole electoral college thing was designed to adjuducate a system of multiple candidates. At the time the constitution was drafted, there was little evidence that the differences among the several states would not lead to three or four viable candidates.

This 2-party system thing is relatively new.

[Cubswin]

No.

Countries that use a plurality electoral system tend to have a two party systems while countries that use proportional representation tend to be multi party systems. This is know as "Duverger's Law" after the french political scientist Maurice Duverger. Duverger explains that the outcomes of electoral systems can be explained by the "mechanical" and "psychological" effects. The mechanical effect of the plurality rule is that all but the two strongest parties are underrpresented because third parties tend to lose in each district. The psychological effect reinforces the mechancical one. Electors realize that their votes are wasted if they continue to vote for third parties so they tend to vote for the lesser of the two evils.

regards
cubswin

[Cubswin]

Ed is spot on here. The constitution sets up the rules of the electoral system. The fact that the constitution spells out that we use a plurality (winner take all) system means that we will tend toward a two party system.

regards
cubswin

[CORed]

What, exactly does the reform party stand for? What do Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot, and Dick Lamm have in common (other than all being wackos)? I don't think a strong third party would be a terrible thing, but I don't think the Reform party is going to be it, unless they show some sign of a coherent vision.

[CORed]

I haven't studied much poli-sci and wasn't aware of "Duverger's Law", but U.S. history would seem to bare it out. Except for some transitional perioss, the U.S. has mostly had two major parties, but they haven't always been the same two parties. Although the Democrats can more or less trace their roots back to Jefferson's Democratic-Republican party, the other major party has changed over time. Initially, we had the Federalists. The Federalists died out, and we had a few years (the so called "Era of Good Feelings") with one party, then the Whig Party emerged. The Republicans started out as an anti-slavery third party, but after the Civil War, became one of the two major parties.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

OK, I see the point. We've evolved towards a 2-party system because of the winner-take-all aspect, even though that was not the intent of the framers. We are also a much more homogeneous culture now than in the late 18th century. I've always believed that the framers expected most Presidential elections to be decided by the House.

[Cubswin]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, I see the point. We've evolved towards a 2-party system because of the winner-take-all aspect, even though that was not the intent of the framers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct, I dont think the framers realized the were setting up the framework of a two party system. They placed emphasis on the "winner take all" aspect of elections because they wanted unity behind the elected officials. Because the electoral college is "winner take all" in nature, it creates what is called a "manufactured" majority (Douglas Rae, 1967).

There are some countries that use a "winner take all" or plurality system but are multi-party systems. The big "outliner" of Duverger's law is India (and to a much lesser extent canada....which is a 2.5 party systems). The fact that india is a plurality system but produces multi party government can be explained by the cultural, ethnic and religious diversity in that country. Austria is an example of a country that uses a proportional representation electoral system but produces a two party government. This result in austria is the result of the country being divided in two large "camps". Im not an expert on austria so dont ask me to go into what these two large camps stand for. All i know is that it is historical in nature.

regard
cubswin

[elwoodblues]

What makes you say that the Electoral College is a winner take all situation? There is nothing in the Constitution that requires a winner take all. In fact, the Constitution tells the states to decide how to apportion their electoral votes:

Article 2 § 1:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct , a Number of Electors...

[Cubswin]

[ QUOTE ]
What makes you say that the Electoral College is a winner take all situation? There is nothing in the Constitution that requires a winner take all.

[/ QUOTE ]

UMMM....how many presidents do we elect? The cadidate that receives a plurality of electoral votes becomes our president, regardless on how the states deside how to apportion these vote. Until we decide to elect two presidents the presidental election will be winner take all contests.

regards
cubswin

[elwoodblues]

I get what you're saying. It is winner take all at the national level, not necessarily at the state level.

[Cubswin]

[ QUOTE ]
I get what you're saying. It is winner take all at the national level, not necessarily at the state level.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct. Interestingly enough there some states that use to use a quasi-proportional representation system for congressional elections. I know Illinois use to use disticts which elected multiple congressmen but this changed about 40 years ago.

regards
cubswin

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

The cadidate that receives a plurality of electoral votes becomes our president

Not to nitpick, but the winner must have the majority of the electorasl votes to win. Otherwise the House of Representatives chooses the President as was the case with John Quincy Adams who did not win a plurality of either the popular or electoral votes.

[Cubswin]

[ QUOTE ]
Not to nitpick, but the winner must have the majority of the electorasl votes to win. Otherwise the House of Representatives chooses the President as was the case with John Quincy Adams who did not win a plurality of either the popular or electoral votes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nitpick away... you are 100% correct. I meant to say majority. Plurality, of course, is the standard for congressional elections /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[GWB]

Cubs,

Your analysis throughout this thread is good.

The states know we only can elect one President, so it is in their interest to maximize their influence - the winner-takes-all plan does this.

Proportional systems often fail to work well. How many short deadlocked governments has Italy had? A plurality system forces parties to put up "consensus" candidates that can get a big chunk on the vote, instead of pandering to every tiny political minority.

In the nineteenth century it was common for states to elect Representatives from multi-member districts and state wide districts. For example, if a state's representation increased from 5 to 6, the state might just decide to elect 5 by the existing districts plus 1 state-wide. The Federal courts did not interfere. Only when the US House of Representatives told the states they would not seat members not selected in single member districts did this occasional practice end.

W

[Cubswin]

[ QUOTE ]
Proportional systems often fail to work well. How many short deadlocked governments has Italy had? A plurality system forces parties to put up "consensus" candidates that can get a big chunk on the vote, instead of pandering to every tiny political minority.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont think it is fair to say that proportional representation (PR) electoral systems fail to work as well as first-past-the-post (FPTP) systems. While italy has had some stabilty problems in the past, it is flawed logic to say that all PR systems will produce simliar results.

There is an old saying among railbirds..."horses for courses".... this applies well to choosing electoral systems for countries. Some countries with a heterogeneous make up need more consensual politics and the PR system works well in these countries. Belgium is a good example of this. The PR system guarentes inclusion of the Flemish, Walloon and the Francophone communities. In the case of Belgium, PR helps create a more stable government then would be created by a FPTP system. Northern Ireland is another case where PR is a much better choice then FPTP.

Many constitutional engineers like to tout one form of elections over the other but i think those that do so are wrong. The choice of an electoral systems is so country dependent that you cant reason that one is inherently better then the other.

regards
cubswin

[Ed Miller]

Countries that use a plurality electoral system tend to have a two party systems while countries that use proportional representation tend to be multi party systems. This is know as "Duverger's Law" after the french political scientist Maurice Duverger.

Damn, and I thought I had figured this out on my own. I was just about to declare it Miller's Law, and now I learn some old French guy got it first? I guess Miller's law is going to have to be something different... I'm not sure what it's going to be, but it's gotta involve beer.

Ain't no old French guy made no law about beer, I know that for sure.

I got it... I call it Miller's Purity Law:

Only barley malt, yeast, hops, and water shall be used in the brewing of lager beers.

That's my unique and original contribution to the world's legal opus.

[Cubswin]

Miller's Law: If you consume 6 12-ounce glasses of an unknown beverage and your urine comes out clear then the beverage was beer. /images/graemlins/grin.gif