4 parties in America

actually, it's the Presidential elections alone that drive the 2-party system, with the requirements for X number of electoral votes. This makes it imperative for a Presidential candidate to have a 'big tent', and thus, everyone gets sorted into one of two camps. This carries over into Congressional and state elections, because if you are a member of the 'big tent', you can count on a lot of support for your election bid.

Of course, the 2-party system isn't actually a bad one... it's worked fine for us for a long time. It has it's faults and it's strengths... like every other political system known to man. Personally, I think it's fine as is... I don't want US politics to be subject to the shenanigans of a horde of 'one-issue' parties, or coalition building, etc...

How would that really be different? Surely, in PR systems, coalition governments are just the equivalent of the 'big tent' parties we see in the US and UK (as explained so well by Electric Monk above)? Anyway, it's possible to have some kind of hybrid system...
 
Actually you're correct, my apologies. Bernie Sanders identifies himself as a democratic socialist, but is not actually a member of the Socialist Party USA.

Yes, but, SEN Sanders has always caucused with the the Democrats, and works closely, closer than some registered Democrats. I don't believe the Vermont Democrat party has ever ran a candidate against him.
 
The problem is the system of election you have, as already noted: winner-takes-all. We have the same kind of setup. It's the only reason we (UK)'ve had any majority governments, in the last 50 years at least... if you manage to change the US electoral system to some form of proportional representation, then smaller parties are certainly in with a chance.

Whe would have more Competition except the Repubocratic party controls the the election Access, and will go to extraordinaire means* to prevent 2nd parties from gaining Ballot access.

When the Public Funding Bill was Drafted, Special care was taken to prevent any 2nd Party from getting the Funds needed to break the Repubocratic monopoly on Power.

So the year before the Election Repubocrat Mr R, announces and starts to raise 50 million for his campaign.
At the same time Repubocrat Mr D also announces and starts Fund Raising.
The national Media carry the Press conferences live, and repeat the annoucement in both the National and local evening news.
The National and local papers carry the annoucement as the days headline.

At the same time 2nd party, Mr L announces, There are no TV or Radio Reporters, and the couple of Newspapers who sent reporters carry the announcement as one of the, 1 Paragraph Burbs on page 2.
But by years end all have raised 50 Million $$$$$.
Mr R, and Mr D start spending on their Campaigns. Mr L starts the long and increasingly difficult campaign to gain Ballot access.
Speaker of the Illinois House --
"This Bill will double the number of Signatures needed to gain Ballot access, and cut the time to get them in Half. almost Guaranteeing no third Party will be able to succeed. Because if there are more than 2 names on the Ballot, they will be so confused they will not know who to Vote For"
The Bill was then Seconded by the Opposition Leader.
The Bill was Passed 98-2 [Abstentions]

Septembre rolls around and the conventions are over. The two Repubocratic conventions got massive media coverage.
The 2nd parties are lucky to get one or two lines on network news at the end of the programs.

Mr R, Mr D and Mr L, approach the Repubocratic Chairman of the Public funding Committee.
'Here your 50 Million Mr R & Mr D. Sorry, Mr L you are not eligible for funding. BUT, if you get 5% or more in the Election Whe will cover your expenses."
The election approches Mr R & Mr D spend their 50 million and for every $ they spend in National or local Market, the Media throws in 4$, in Free Media.

Mr L spends 16 million [most of his supporters were tapped out raising the Ballot 50 million] For each $ He spends the Media throws in 25 cents in free media.

For his 250 million Mr R gets 50 million Votes plus/minus several percent.
For his 250 million Mr D gets 50 million Votes plus/minus several percent.
the Plus/Minus determining the Winner
For his 20 million Mr R gets 4 million Votes plus/minus several percent.
Sorry Mr L. Better luck next time :p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p

Except look at the cost /vote :eek:

This is the reason why the Media took Perot's threat to spend over 50 Million of his own money so serious.


* When LaRouche's Social Democrat candidates managed to win the Democratic Nominations for various State Offices in Illinois, The State Democratic Party Leadership, sent out Flyer's to every registered Democrat, urging them to vote for the Republican Candidates.
 
Yes, but, SEN Sanders has always caucused with the the Democrats, and works closely, closer than some registered Democrats. I don't believe the Vermont Democrat party has ever ran a candidate against him.

the one time he's run for the Senate they didn't, however during the 16 years he was in the house they run some against in every election but one (1994)
 
It's actually quite complex.

Broadly speaking (and using the US terms) there are various streams of conservatives, moderates, a formerly factionalized but now mostly unified liberal grouping, and the progressive/reformers.

(Aka the pseudo-conservative classical liberals, the regular classical liberals, the social democratic classical liberals, and the reformers.)



The modern Republican Party can be broken down into:

Libertarians. To be sure they are a small force, and somewhat swinging to the Democrats over social issues, but they used to & usually vote Republican. Libertarians basically believe in a very small government, and being left alone. They are most common along the Rocky Mountain states and are one reason Democrats have seen recent success in that region.

Neo-conservatives. Ex-Democrats, they are basically neo-Wilsonians, believing that the spread of democracy by American might will result in a better world. The Iraq war has basically trashed their influence.

Business conservatives. At times they've run the Republican Party (post-Civil War until Teddy Roosevelt, after Teddy to the Great Depression) and are basically concerned with economic values—a pro-business Wall Street oriented thing. (Generally speaking these are the Republican moderates today—they don't care or are with the Democrats on social issues, and they're not wildly concerned by tax cuts although they do want them.)

Neoliberals. Related to the business conservatives, but without the corporate welfare and with a libertarian-ish emphasis on a smaller state. Basically the free market is the awesome for everything.

Main Street conservatives. These are the small town midwest folks concerned with balanced budgets, some concern for social issues (they're against abortion, but not rapidly so for example), a strong America, and so forth.

Social conservatives. Mostly in the South they have until recently been focused heavily on social issues (i.e. anti-abortion, anti-gay, etc…) but people like Governor Huckabee are trying to move them to consider the broader issues their faith should compel them to look at—the poor, for instance.

Progressives. What few who remain in the party are basically old Teddy Roosevelt voters who believe that the government needs reform, corporations have too much power, and the little people need help. They don't really take a liberal or conservative position, but generally rebel against failure. With Roosevelt that was too much corporate power, with Ross Perot they felt it was a bipartisan failure of both parties to address economic issues.

Liberals. Related to both the progressives and the business conservatives, these were basically the Eastern Wall Street establishment plus concern for the poor. All gone now, basically, since Rockefeller lost.


The Democratic Party is:

Progressives. As above. They supported Ross Perot in 1992, and Barack Obama is of this grouping which explains his support (progressive states—basically the Canadian border states—+ Southern states with large black populations). Please note some Democratic liberals—i.e. the activist online community—misuse "progressive" when they mean "liberal" (and when they really mean "social democrat") when in fact progressives & liberals are two very different factions in American politics.

Southern Democrats. When used in this sense it more or less means conservative (& usually poor) white southerners who didn't vote for the Republicans because they were Republicans. Again, mostly gone. See social conservatives, Main Street conservatives.

Liberals. Social democrats, common on the West and East coasts. (Note that once upon a time there used to be several different groupings. As the conservative factions splintered farther apart with success, so the liberal factions have grouped together with defeat.). Generally allied with the progressives since a "reform" position right now is inherently a liberal position, given the conservative tilt of governance.

Moderates. As with Republican moderates (what few are left, at this point) they basically come to a halfway point between whatever the dominant conservative and liberal battle of the day is.

Conservatives. Sort of the right-wing of DLC style New Democrats. Centrist, adopts some Republican positions, big corporate supporters. Post-1994 Bill Clinton Democrats, say.




That's the quickie version. But the long version is pretty cool, how new factions pop up, how some fade, and how they wind in-between the parties.

Just thought I'd bump this one up a bit!

Excellent post, I think I will do a similar thing on the factions/tendencies within Australian political parties. Would be very interested in reading a similar analysis on British politics.

Just one question: On the Democratic side of politics, what is the exact difference between progressives and liberals? For instance in what ways does Barack Obama differ from the average liberal democrat?
 
Just one question: On the Democratic side of politics, what is the exact difference between progressives and liberals? For instance in what ways does Barack Obama differ from the average liberal democrat?

Progressives in the USA have adopted the name "progressive" as a branding exercise because the Republicans managed to define "liberal" as bad and Democrats failed to fight back properly on that front. Basically whenever an activist Democrat says they're a "progressive" feel free to substitute "left-wing liberal willing to fight Republicans" and whenever a Democratic politician uses progressive they pretty much just mean "liberal".

Actual progressives in the USA are more or less Perot voters in '92—they wanted solutions (with something of a populist/anti-corporate vibe) over ideology.
 
Progressives in the USA have adopted the name "progressive" as a branding exercise because the Republicans managed to define "liberal" as bad and Democrats failed to fight back properly on that front. Basically whenever an activist Democrat says they're a "progressive" feel free to substitute "left-wing liberal willing to fight Republicans" and whenever a Democratic politician uses progressive they pretty much just mean "liberal".

Actual progressives in the USA are more or less Perot voters in '92—they wanted solutions (with something of a populist/anti-corporate vibe) over ideology.

not quite right, Progressive is well, American for socialist. Progressivism started back with TR and the Square Deal.
 
not quite right, Progressive is well, American for socialist. Progressivism started back with TR and the Square Deal.

Progressives are "fix the system" type reformers. In the early years of the last century that manifested as anti-big business, in '92 it was the Washington Establishment and budget issues, and so forth.

They're actually very non-ideological which is one reason Newt Gingrich and the '94 Congress captured much of the '92 Perot vote while nowadays most of those Progressive voters are on board with Obama (who is, incidentally, of the progressive tradition more than the liberal one).

If you take a look at Obama's best states in the primaries they're either Progressive/Perot states in the North or high black population states in the South.
 
Progressives are "fix the system" type reformers. In the early years of the last century that manifested as anti-big business, in '92 it was the Washington Establishment and budget issues, and so forth.

They're actually very non-ideological which is one reason Newt Gingrich and the '94 Congress captured much of the '92 Perot vote while nowadays most of those Progressive voters are on board with Obama (who is, incidentally, of the progressive tradition more than the liberal one).

If you take a look at Obama's best states in the primaries they're either Progressive/Perot states in the North or high black population states in the South.

i alway think of them as more the Square Deal/New Deal/Great Society people
 
Progressives are "fix the system" type reformers. In the early years of the last century that manifested as anti-big business, in '92 it was the Washington Establishment and budget issues, and so forth.

They're actually very non-ideological which is one reason Newt Gingrich and the '94 Congress captured much of the '92 Perot vote while nowadays most of those Progressive voters are on board with Obama (who is, incidentally, of the progressive tradition more than the liberal one).

If you take a look at Obama's best states in the primaries they're either Progressive/Perot states in the North or high black population states in the South.

I take it then progressives are very much 'anti-politician' politics, so to speak? Very anti-establishment, anti-elite populism?

This sort of reminds me of Mark Latham, the Australian Opposition Leader of the Australian Labor Party in 2004. He was very anti-elite and anti-corporate, but he also despised the Socialist Left faction of the ALP and intellectual elites as well. His politics were very much based on insider versus outsider distinctions. He went to a landslide loss at the 2004 Federal election here in Australia, as many peole felt he was too unpredictable and not a 'safe pair of hands' to be Prime Minister.
 
A lot of those "socialist" parties listed are actually hard-line Communist/Stalinist, but they don't say that. I remember some of 'em came by my college when I was an undergrad and in grad school, and they were very ferverent in what they were and stood for. They were trying to recruit a few more "useful idiots", for want of a better term. Here in the States, "socialist" usually is considered by most folks, including the media and the two major parties, as equaling "Commie." Trying to get these neo-Stalinist or neo-Communists to admit that the Party's over (pardon the pun), and has been since 1989-91 is a waste of time. Incidentally, the Worker's World Party is the outfit that former Attorney General Ramsey Clark runs with. How LBJ's attorney general fell in league with a bunch of unrepentant Stalinists is beyond me. They apologize for everyone opposed to the U.S., except for Al-Qaida, and mourned the deaths of both Saddam and Milosevic. Not to mention cheering on anyone fighting the U.S. in combat.

Some of the "Progressive" types are pretty liberal, but not to the extremes above. They'd consider the ACLU to be conservative. The term has a pretty wide brush. Hiliary Clinton calls herself progressive, but her ideas were/are pretty similar to her husband's. (Mainly centrist, but she had to call herself a progressive to appeal to the Democrats' liberal base-which is somewhat further to the left than she is politically) Which does illustrate a major point in American politics-GOP candidates have to appeal to the right wing of the GOP to get the Presidential nomination, but then have to appeal to the political center (where most folks are) to get elected. Similarily, Democrats have to appeal to the liberal base of their party to get the nomination, but have to shift to the center if they want to win. Bill Clinton (though I disagreed with him on a number of things) did that very well in 1992 to get the nomination. Al Gore and John Kerry had to do the same in their campaigns as well. But that's no guarantee of moving to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, as both of them found out.
 
A lot of those "socialist" parties listed are actually hard-line Communist/Stalinist, but they don't say that. I remember some of 'em came by my college when I was an undergrad and in grad school, and they were very ferverent in what they were and stood for. They were trying to recruit a few more "useful idiots", for want of a better term. Here in the States, "socialist" usually is considered by most folks, including the media and the two major parties, as equaling "Commie."
Yes, but I thought that was just Americans being politically odd, and forgetting the Cold War was over again... not actual reality.
Trying to get these neo-Stalinist or neo-Communists to admit that the Party's over (pardon the pun), and has been since 1989-91 is a waste of time. Incidentally, the Worker's World Party is the outfit that former Attorney General Ramsey Clark runs with. How LBJ's attorney general fell in league with a bunch of unrepentant Stalinists is beyond me. They apologize for everyone opposed to the U.S., except for Al-Qaida, and mourned the deaths of both Saddam and Milosevic. Not to mention cheering on anyone fighting the U.S. in combat.
Well, they sound like... entirely sensible people. Of course. :rolleyes:
 
Some people just haven't gotten the idea that Communism/Socialism or whatever you want to call it just doesn't work. Not to mention there's been articles in such newspapers as the L.A. Times and the Washington Post exposing the WWP and its front groups (ANSWER, International Action Center, etc) for what they are. Even some of those on the peace left (who I heartily despise) don't like this bunch, as even most peaceniks realize that cheering on the enemy or mourning the deaths of Saddam and Milosevic isn't going to make most Americans like you and your views. With these folks, it's like a secular religion. Nothing anyone says or does is going to shake them from it.

Oh, back in the late '40s and early '50s, "Progressive" was also equated with "stooge of Moscow." That view occasionally comes up in papers like the Dallas Morning News or the San Francisco Examiner. The fact that a lot of Henry Wallace's supporters in 1948 were openly communist at a time when the Cold War was getting started (the Berlin Blockade was still on at election time) didn't help his image at all.
 
Some people just haven't gotten the idea that Communism/Socialism or whatever you want to call it just doesn't work.
NOT the same thing at all. Any more than Fascism = Conservatism. This is exactly what I'm talking about, this odd American conception that Communism = Socialism...
 
NOT the same thing at all. Any more than Fascism = Conservatism. This is exactly what I'm talking about, this odd American conception that Communism = Socialism...

Yeah. Honestly, WTF? Canada and most of the EU is socialist, and we're doing quite fine for ourselves, thank you very much.
 
Well, when said "socialist" parties still preach the old Soviet-style brand, it's kinda hard here in the States to see any difference. Now, some in the Democratic Party would like things here to be similar to Western Europe or our neighbors to the north, but fat chance of anything major coming out of it from any Congress. They're usually from the SF Bay Area, which is pretty liberal (unfortunately-look at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi), or from New England. (NY, Mass., etc.-look at what Teddy Kennedy has advocated, for example).
 
NOT the same thing at all. Any more than Fascism = Conservatism. This is exactly what I'm talking about, this odd American conception that Communism = Socialism...

This is true, but as others have said in America the term 'Socialist' does tend to mean 'Communist', ie in the sense that most mainstream left-wing politicians will not associate themselves with the term 'Socialist' in the way that mainstream Western European politicians (at least in the past) would. Therefore, in the main, only those who are actually Communist will be usually wiling to classify themselves as 'Socialist'.
 
This is true, but as others have said in America the term 'Socialist' does tend to mean 'Communist', ie in the sense that most mainstream left-wing politicians will not associate themselves with the term 'Socialist' in the way that mainstream Western European politicians (at least in the past) would.
I know that...
Therefore, in the main, only those who are actually Communist will be usually wiling to classify themselves as 'Socialist'.
Oh. So they're ruining it for the rest of us. Great... :rolleyes:
 

Churchill

Banned
Proportional representation does have some history in the United States. Many cities, including New York City, once used it for their city councils as a way to break up the Democratic Party monopolies on elective office.In Cincinnati, Ohio, proportional representation was adopted in 1925 to get rid of a Republican Party party machine, but the Republicans successfully overturned proportional representation in 1957. With proportional representation, otherwise marginalized social, political and racial minorities were able to attain elected office, and this fact was ironically a key argument opponents of proportional representation used in their campaigns — "undesirables" were gaining a voice in electoral politics.[citation needed] From 1870 to 1980, the State of Illinois used a semi-proportional system of cumulative voting to elect its State House of Representatives. Each district across the state elected both Republicans and Democrats year-after-year. While most jurisdictions no longer use proportional representation, it is still used in Cambridge, Massachusetts and Peoria, Illinois. San Francisco did not have proportional elections; rather it had city-wide elections where people would cast votes for five or six candidates simultaneously, delivering some of the benefits of proportional representation, but not all. A comparison[1] between San Francisco and Rotterdam shows how emancipation and access are more entrenched in district elections.
 
Top