Challenge: 3 party US system

[tom]

Make the American political structure be three evenly balanced parties, the later the PoD the better. No ASBs, please.
One idea: The abortion issues forms a party that is pro-life but socially liberal. Republicans are pro-life and socially conservative, and Democrats are pro-choice and socially liberal.
However you get it, how would this influence American presidential elections?

[drcynic]

I'm not quite sure what ASB means...

However, best modern chance I can think of is if Perot's Reform Party isn't beset by problems and they are able to build upon his 1992 result in 1996. If things had gone a little differently, America could easily have been a three party system with the Dems on the left, Repubs on the right and Reform in the middle.

However, in order for it to happen, everything had to go right and as we know, everything went wrong for them.

[Plumber]

Republicans-Democrats-Dixiecrats
Social liberalism and fiscal conservatism decrease as you go rightward

[The Marauder]

Originally Posted by Plumber

Republicans-Democrats-Dixiecrats
Social liberalism and fiscal conservatism decrease as you go rightward

Only problem with that is what keeps the Dixiecrats from being irrelevant on that federal level, or is that the actual reality of their situation, doomed to state issues and southern support?

Republicans seem to be in the best position and the Democrats can just take any of the more conservative voters that aren't in the south, but without them, they'll be much weaker.

I'm thinking with a PoD somewhere in the Gilded Age or early 1900's, the Socialist Party could exist as a third party that throws off the balance between Democrats and Republicans, provided the two parties don't co-opt socialist planks into their platforms like OTL.

[SlideAway]

You'd need some kind of structural changes in U.S. politics that move the system away from winner-take-all to something more proportional. The main reasons the U.S. is a two-party system, after all, are (1) the use of FPTP in legislative elections and (2) the winner-take-all nature of presidential elections which reinforces the bias of FPTP systems to two-partyism.

I don't think this is a particularly likely outcome, but one possibility would be a Humphrey victory in 1968. Back in 1969, an amendment to abolish the Electoral College nearly passed - it overwhelmingly passed the House and polls showed the requisite number of state legislatures were willing to approve it. It fell just short in the Senate, though, dying due to a Southern filibuster and getting tepid Republican support despite the Nixon White House's support. What was interesting about the amendment was that it provided for a national popular vote for president, with a top-two runoff if no candidate reached 40% of the vote.

Now, suppose that Humphrey narrowly defeated Nixon in the Electoral College but lost the popular vote. Now, Republicans in the Senate may more strongly back the measure, allowing it to pass.

The second step would be some kind of move towards proportional representation in the U.S. House. IOTL, there was speculation among legal scholars that the Supreme Court was moving towards requiring that but it ultimately backed away, aided by Nixon's appointments shifting the court to the right. So perhaps four liberal appointments by Humphrey ultimately mandate minority representation in the House by requiring some kind of proportional representation, maybe producing something like cumulative vote or single-transferable vote as the main electoral system for voting in the House.

Together these two things would probably break down the two-party system at least partially. Democrats and Republicans may still remain the dominant parties, but several small parties get minor representation in the House, while perhaps one or two other parties get more significant representation and occasionally do well in presidential elections.

[HeavyWeaponsGuy]

Aside from needing changes to the system or the views of the American people in general, the Progressives were the party that most consistently mounted strong efforts.

Dixiecrats were doomed to failure, they are a regional party with zero competitive ability outside the South.

[strangeland]

With first-past-the-post, it's hard unless you have stronger regionalism.

[HeavyWeaponsGuy]

Originally Posted by strangeland

With first-past-the-post, it's hard unless you have stronger regionalism.

Or a remotely credible third party at all.

[hefajstos]

Originally Posted by drcynic

I'm not quite sure what ASB means...

ASB-Alien Space Bat(s)-to require [divine intervention, a breakdown in natural laws, etc] to achieve a goal. In effect calling something laughably implausable and in the extreme end of soft AH.
Not always a bad thing story wise however very bad in the history field.

[Jello_Biafra]

Originally Posted by HeavyWeaponsGuy

Aside from needing changes to the system or the views of the American people in general, the Progressives were the party that most consistently mounted strong efforts.

Dixiecrats were doomed to failure, they are a regional party with zero competitive ability outside the South.

Regionalism is the fasted way to a 2+ party system in a first-past the post constitution. Look at Canada, for example, which has only one truly competitive party on a nation-wide level in the past few elections: the Conservatives.

In the Western Provinces, the left is much more heavily represented by the social democratic New Democratic Party. In the Atlantic Provinces, it's the Liberals that are the main opposition to the Conservatives. The Liberals are philosophically classic liberals who have only adopted welfarist policies for Rawlsian reasons, and so really are "Left" in name-only.

And Quebec, well, votes Bloc Quebecois. Four parties with major representation in the national parliament, all thanks to regionalism.

[Dean501]

The thing is any 3 party system is doomed to have 2 that at some point combine, to challenge the 3rd when they gain power. The key is to have a 4th party, two moderates on both sides and a conservative and liberal party.That is the only way to keep it balanced and avoid a long term coalition.

[Jello_Biafra]

Originally Posted by Deano1001

The thing is any 3 party system is doomed to have 2 that at some point combine, to challenge the 3rd when they gain power. The key is to have a 4th party, two moderates on both sides and a conservative and liberal party.That is the only way to keep it balanced and avoid a long term coalition.

Canada seems to disprove your thesis. The two left-leaning parties haven't combined and barring an act of God, will not combine in the future. And they've proven almost incapable of governing together in coalition.

[DuQuense]

the later the PoD the better.

Well it has to be before Presidential Campaign Reform was passed.

The Repubicratic Party used PCR to grandfather in both of it's wings, and prevent any other Party from being able to challenge them.

[Dean501]

Originally Posted by Jello_Biafra

Canada seems to disprove your thesis. The two left-leaning parties haven't combined and barring an act of God, will not combine in the future. And they've proven almost incapable of governing together in coalition.

But in the U.S its just the opposite. The Progressive Party took the votes from the Republican party, and when they lost they came back together.The Reform/Perot supporters did the same thing in 1992'. Inside the American Political parties are where we see coalitions, as the political parties, could have two politicians with polar opposite view points within one party. The Conservative Coalition within the Republicans to combat Dewey's moderate-liberal leadership (and the New Deal) is a perfect example of this, but a split in the party would be political suicide for any political party so it never happens.

[HeavyWeaponsGuy]

Originally Posted by Jello_Biafra

Regionalism is the fasted way to a 2+ party system in a first-past the post constitution. Look at Canada, for example, which has only one truly competitive party on a nation-wide level in the past few elections: the Conservatives.

In the Western Provinces, the left is much more heavily represented by the social democratic New Democratic Party. In the Atlantic Provinces, it's the Liberals that are the main opposition to the Conservatives. The Liberals are philosophically classic liberals who have only adopted welfarist policies for Rawlsian reasons, and so really are "Left" in name-only.

And Quebec, well, votes Bloc Quebecois. Four parties with major representation in the national parliament, all thanks to regionalism.

Canada's political system is not the same as the American one, regional parties can only stay regional because of the American electoral system. In Canada's system that you are describing to me, a group akin to the Dixiecrats (with very strong popularity within their home region like your Quebecois) would get much stronger representation in Canada's parliament, here they'd have some Southern senators, the more Northern-leaning Democrats (i.e. closer to the national mood than the Dixiecrats, who are radical and segregationist and thus are only going to find huge support in the South). Still their impact wouldn't be as powerful as a party of a similar nature would be in Canada, two different systems, for American parties to truly be competitive (especially in regards to getting a shot at the White House) they MUST be national.

[fero]

List_of_legislatures_by_country

argentina system (fix to USA)

president election year 2012
party winner by state get vote of that state for president and 1 senator to represent that state/province/districs/youknow
party not winner get nothing

congress election 2014
party winner by state get elected 1 senator (or whatever upper house members the tiny house get call in that country)
second party by state get elected 1 senator too

Result: a 150 members senate, yes Dems and Reps are sure more that 66% but presentation of third parties is serious.

after a few year of that Third Parties are present in Senate, I guess they start winning spots in Legislative Chamber, later by his own work that can turn in a 3-parties-system or a multy-party-system.

Being the current second party of California mind nothing in USA today, that not look too democratic to me.

[DuQuense]

the later the PoD the better.

Well it has to be before Presidential Campaign Reform was passed.

The Repubicratic Party used PCR to grandfather in both of it's wings, and prevent any other Party from being able to challenge them.

[eschaton]

I disagree with people who argue that the U.S. system of first-past-the-post is what entrenched the two-party system. Not only Canada stands in opposition to this, but also Mexico, the United Kingdom, and India (in their lower house). It's also used in a buttload of minor former British colonies, particularly in the Caribbean, but I know next to nothing about their political cultures.

Regardless, I would say the entrenched two-party system is due to both the first-past-the post system, as well as the strong level of executive power a president wields in the United States. While it's theoretically possible, for example, for the Dixiecrats to remain an organized regional party, it's near ASB to imagine a Dixiecrat president ever. Hence, when parties factionalize it's always better to fold into someone, else you'll effectively be shut out of the executive corridors of power forever.

Bottom line is without a parliamentary U.S., I don't see it happening.

[Dan1988]

Well, ideology does not have to be a factor here, except perhaps with the Socialists. How about massive personality differences?

For example - say, the Republican Party under Theodore Roosevelt. It could split in two (thereby creating the three parties to fulfill the OP) between those who agree with TR (and who thus remain as Republicans) and those who disagree with TR (and who thus break away from the GOP and defect to the Democratic Party en masse). Some major crisis within the GOP could be the spark that sets off the split. As a possible crisis, one could have the split in the GOP as being supportive of TR for having a strong President that can deal with society's ills (who end up forming the basis of TTL's modern GOP) or not being supportive of TR because they believe that it is turning into a tyranny of the majority or demagoguery (those who split).

Hence, the GOP in TTL becomes traditionalist/liberal-conservative to progressive and absorbs the Populist Party (imagine William Jennings Bryan, a Republican!), and would probably be similar to a European-style Christian Democratic party that leans centrist to centre-left, such as the French UDF. Maybe they try to break out and reach out to the new immigrants at the time. For example, in Rhode Island, the GOP could become attractive amongst French-Canadian immigrants and Franco-Americans and thus perceive itself as the defender of traditional "Canadian" values, which just happen to coincide with American values. (This is influenced by the fact that much of my Dad's side of the family is GOP to the core, and they are Franco-American.)

At the same time, we could have socialism organized enough (and running enough state governments to have some experience) to form its own party on the national stage. Say, for example, the Socialist Party of America absorbs the Farmer-Labour movement, and thus reflect that in a name change to the Socialist/Farmer-Labour Party (or even just the Farmer-Labour Party). In its bid to become appealing to Americans, they do a subtle shift towards social democracy whilst retaining much of its democratic socialist elements. This shift towards social democracy would be conditioned by the experience it has had on the state level. As such, eventually the Socialist/Farmer-Labour Party becomes a major party as well, if only because it continues to participate in State governments and regularly sends members to Congress.

Thus, there are your three major parties - Democratic (as conservatives), Republicans (as centrists), and the Socialist/Farmer Labour Party (as, well, socialists). And all around the upper limits of this board (the early 1900s, pre-*WW1).

[JoeMulk]

Rockefeller Republicans continue to dominate the*GOP and southern dixiecrats and taftite conservatives go through with a long conceptualized plan to form a "Conservative Party."

Either that or the populist party survives in the 1890s.