2 1/2 party system in US.

[Lost the game]

As it says. I've always been amused by the fact that there is a viable (compared to such parties in the US) party other than the usual two parties in the UK, despite the FPTP system. What I want to know is this:

• how can this happen in the United States?
• how are presidential elections by this?
• does the electoral college get abolished as a result?
• what might be the positions of the parties?
• could we see a hung senate or house? If so, how does the leadership handle it, and do we see coalitions in Congress?
• what demographics might vote for which party?
• What is the latest possile POD for thie? The earliest?

[NoxAeternum]

Actually, for most of the 20th century, the US had three parties - the Republicans, the Democrats, and the Dixiecrats.

[The Admiral Hook]

Originally Posted by NoxAeternum

Actually, for most of the 20th century, the US had three parties - the Republicans, the Democrats, and the Dixiecrats.

Nope. The Dixiecrats as a distinction didn't exist very long at all (one election) and, honestly, was not really all that different from traditional Democrat views of the time.

Not sure where you're getting your information.

Also, welcome to the board!

[Lord Grattan]

Originally Posted by NoxAeternum

Actually, for most of the 20th century, the US had three parties - the Republicans, the Democrats, and the Dixiecrats.

No, the States' Rights Party, the "Dixiecrats", existed only in 1948.

[1.36]

If Libertarians came together earlier, and their political philosophy was developed earlier as well, I could have seen then as a major party...having drawn away some Republicans and indeed Democrats from the other parties....

[RamscoopRaider]

Very difficult the US has a single member winner take all system, this encourages lesser parties to merge so that they can compete most effectively. The only way for a viable third party is a strong regional block, which dixiecrats aside does not exist int the USA at this time. So divergence point is pretty big

[Marja]

Originally Posted by 1.36

If Libertarians came together earlier, and their political philosophy was developed earlier as well, I could have seen then as a major party...having drawn away some Republicans and indeed Democrats from the other parties....

But the distinction between libertarianism and classical liberalism goes back to the 1830s, even if the name only dates to the 1850s, and libertarians have generally avoided electoral politics. And in America, libertarianism was tied to abolitionism, and later to the labor movement, and suffered repeated crackdowns, particularly during the 1910s.

Or did you mean some other movement that uses the same name?

[Blackfox5]

The Populists and the Socialists were a significant factor in local and national politics in the laste 19th century and early 20th century, even if their Presidential electoral votes were small.

What killed the Socialists were their opposition to WWI, the Red Scare, and eventually the New Deal coopting most of their ideas. If World War I never happens, they might have continued to be a significant, even if perpetual minority, party.

[SlideAway]

The difference is that the UK is a parliamentary system, which means that a third-party won't ALWAYS play spoiler. Half the time they will, but other times they have the opportunity to form coalitions or be the deciding votes.

In a presidential system that isn't the case; a third-party cannot do anything but play spoiler in a presidential race.

Now, conceivably you could have a state-based or regional party that simply doesn't run candidates for president - for awhile the MN Farmer-Labor Party and the WI Progressive Party were examples of this. But a national third-party? Simply not sustainable.

You would need some change in the system - like a 50% runoff system for president or a shift to a more parliamentary system.

In short, the reason the U.S. is so overwhelmingly two-party is because we combine FPTP with a presidential system - both on their own promote a two-party system, and when you combine them you make the effects even stronger.

[1.36]

Originally Posted by Marja

But the distinction between libertarianism and classical liberalism goes back to the 1830s, even if the name only dates to the 1850s, and libertarians have generally avoided electoral politics. And in America, libertarianism was tied to abolitionism, and later to the labor movement, and suffered repeated crackdowns, particularly during the 1910s.

Or did you mean some other movement that uses the same name?

No I agree...and that's the problem..they should have started a really political movement. Rather than join someone else's...

And just like the other parties, the LP would have evolved a bit over time...to the one we have today...maybe a bit different, maybe not.

[DSS]

The Libertarian Party would have done really well had it existed in the late 1960s. It was founded too late.

[NoxAeternum]

Originally Posted by TheInfiniteApe

Nope. The Dixiecrats as a distinction didn't exist very long at all (one election) and, honestly, was not really all that different from traditional Democrat views of the time.

Not sure where you're getting your information.

Also, welcome to the board!

Perhaps I should explain better.

Throughout the 20th century, politics in the US revolved around three major coalitions. You have the populist coalition, which winds up under the Democratic banner. The monied interests gravitate to the GOP. And then you have the Southern coalition, which doesn't fit into either. Unfortunately, this has allowed them to play kingmaker.

[Tim Thomason]

If Richard Nixon never pursued the "Southern strategy" (or if, say, Rockefeller or George Romney got the '68 nomination instead), then we have a real good chance of Southern Democrats transitioning over to George Wallace's American Independent Party.

Wallace doesn't have a chance in '68, but if he decides against returning to the Democrats (probably if Humphrey wins that year against whomever), then he could very well build a new party from scratch to collect all the southerners that voted for him and the old Dixiecrats (Could Thurmond defect one more time?).

As shown in 1868 and 1872, the Southern states are just fine voting for a candidate who stands no chance whatsoever in the general. Any slightly more successful southerner party would act as sort of a constant spoiler of Presidential elections.

[NoxAeternum]

Originally Posted by Tim Thomason

If Richard Nixon never pursued the "Southern strategy" (or if, say, Rockefeller or George Romney got the '68 nomination instead), then we have a real good chance of Southern Democrats transitioning over to George Wallace's American Independent Party.

Wallace doesn't have a chance in '68, but if he decides against returning to the Democrats (probably if Humphrey wins that year against whomever), then he could very well build a new party from scratch to collect all the southerners that voted for him and the old Dixiecrats (Could Thurmond defect one more time?).

As shown in 1868 and 1872, the Southern states are just fine voting for a candidate who stands no chance whatsoever in the general. Any slightly more successful southerner party would act as sort of a constant spoiler of Presidential elections.

I don't think they'd do it for very long, though. Most of the South are debtor states, and becoming a non-entity in the Presidential race is a good way to hurt that gravy train.

[TNF]

Originally Posted by Dead Sea Squirrels

The Libertarian Party would have done really well had it existed in the late 1960s. It was founded too late.

It would have done really well in the era of 'Big Government'?

[Thande]

Originally Posted by NoxAeternum

and becoming a non-entity in the Presidential race is a good way to hurt that gravy train.

OTL the various Dixiecrat tickets/unpledged electors' policies was to try and force a hung electoral college, and then use their electoral votes to negotiate with the Democratic and Republican candidates--basically "we will see you elected president if you promise to let us keep/pursue segregation"

[Strategos' Risk]

Originally Posted by TNF

It would have done really well in the era of 'Big Government'?

As the contrarian voice, it could get some support, third parties work best in the opposition. They could form fusion tickets with the Republican Party in local or state levels. Ayn Rand was still alive at the time, that would be interesting.

[Saepe Fidelis]

Amend the voting system for the Congress and make it a more effective and proactive part of American politics. Despite what Madison might have said about division of powers, 20th century America has become increasingly imperial, as can be seen through the passage of the Patriot Act and other pieces of legislation forced through by a President.

If getting a handful of seats in the House of Representatives actually means something in the grand scale of things then maybe you'd see more small parties.

[Æsir]

During much of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the US apparently often had fairly weak Presidencies with the Speaker of the House taking over an almost Prime Ministerial role. Have this continue (Avert the Presidency of Teddy Roosevelt?) and the US could move towards a de facto even if not de jure semi-Presidential system like in France. This would leave an opening for smaller parties, who could hold the balance of power in the House of Representatives and thus be able to choose who gets to be Speaker of House.

The British Prime Minister is something of a de facto rather than de jure position, drawing power from being responsible for the majority in the House of Commons which is responsible for the budget. The US House similarly has sole authority to initiate budgets and so a Speaker of the House so inclined could wield de facto executive power, which already happens to some extent when a particularly vigorous opposition (Such as the Republicans under Newt Gingrich) hold the majority.

[Riain]

I think maybe the Presidential system makes a 1/2 party difficult, but what about balance of power parties in Congress and the Senate?