Only in the US. Everywhere else they tend to go to 3 and minors. Ireland for example has Fianna Fail, Sinn Fein and Fine Gael plus minors. Pakistan has PTI, PML and PPP plus minors, Canada has 4 ( the extra being Bloc Québécois despite being regional ) and minors.
A Blunted Sickle - Thread II
- Thread starter pdf27
- Start date
The principle that FPTP devolves to a two-party system is only really true for a single seat, or at least a region. While the UK has three major national parties, and four or so significant regional parties, any given area actually turns out to be a two-way or sometimes three-way contest. The three-way contests tend to be rural areas which have historically voted Conservative having an identity crisis between the Lib Dems and the local nationalist party.
There's no reason that, in a hypothetical AH, the US couldn't have a stable system whereby the former Confederacy is a two-party contest between the Republicans and Dixiecrats, and the rest of the US is a two-party contest between the Republicans and Democrats. In such a scenario, the Dixiecrats aren't in any danger of winning the Presidency (though electoral college horse trading could see them getting a VP in a highly contested election), but they can easily wind up with some Senators and Representatives. Other third parties are, of course, available. Some of them might become fourth or even fifth parties.
The reason this doesn't happen in the US is that the two major parties appear to have landed on the same strategies as the Borg and Microsoft when it comes to competitors.
Aren’t all of these examples parliamentary systems? A presidential system makes the process of forming coalitions pretty different and less likely to allow for third parties in the mix.
A parliamentary system and a president aren't mutually exclusive, the two things that stop a third party in the US are (IMO) the combination of FPTP and the electoral college in the presidential space, and the structure of elections/appointments to the senate. Each senatorial election has only one winner, making it classic FPTP, unlike systems where both are up at the same time, and only allowing two per state encourages having one of each at most. The Australian senate, as a point of comparison, elects 6 senators per state per election, using STV, meaning that generally 1-3 minor party candidates get in per state.
It's actually possible to run the United States as a parliamentary republic without a constitutional amendment. Some of the other laws around how the US government works aren't compatible with it, but it's entirely constitutional for Congress to be preeminent, with the President using their executive powers to give effect to the wishes of Congress.
I could be wrong, but I think the US constitution places a much greater emphasis on the separation of legislature and executive than is common in parliamentary governments.
For mine, if the goal of the process is to maintain relative representation and increase the likelihood of electing outside the two party system, you're looking at expanding the US senate, though I don't know how you'd execute that.
NZ has a Westminster system and has been running a form of PR since 96 (3 year cycle) and sort of has retained the two Big Parties but at the same time growing around 4 smaller parties that rarely look like they'll supplant the big 2 so they act as support parties in electoral coalitions.
It's not really the Presidential system that restricts the US to a very strict two-party system, but the use of primaries. With a primary system, any new or unusual political position can still be incorporated into one of the existing political parties by contesting and winning a few primaries. Without one, party leaderships can exclude people from becoming candidates and those people will then gather into third parties. Imagine if Trump had had to apply to a "Candidate approval sub-committee of the Republican National Committee" before being allowed to run for the nomination in 2016. He'd have been rejected, and he (and his political movement) would have been outside of the Republican Party. Similarly for Sanders and the Democratic Party.
The USA had a presidential system in the period before WWII too, but had lots of third parties - Progressives, Populists and Socialists all won significant numbers of local representatives (far more than any post-WWII third party) and had their own caucuses in the House at times. Minnesota's Farmer-Labor Party was so successful, the Democratic Party had to merge with it. But primaries, with open filing rules, for most US House and Senate seats and most local elections were established through the 1920s-1950s and they brought all sorts of people who the party establishments hate into Congress and into state legislatures.
Obviously, the US would have two dominant parties as long as it keeps the FPTP electoral system. But there's a difference between a normal level of dominance like Labour/Conservative in the UK or Liberal/Conservative in Canada and the extreme level in the US, and while the Presidency is part of the problem, the core one is that third parties can't build benches because they can't win elections because the people who would fight and win elections for them are, instead, running as radical candidates in major party primaries.
The USA had a presidential system in the period before WWII too, but had lots of third parties - Progressives, Populists and Socialists all won significant numbers of local representatives (far more than any post-WWII third party) and had their own caucuses in the House at times. Minnesota's Farmer-Labor Party was so successful, the Democratic Party had to merge with it. But primaries, with open filing rules, for most US House and Senate seats and most local elections were established through the 1920s-1950s and they brought all sorts of people who the party establishments hate into Congress and into state legislatures.
Obviously, the US would have two dominant parties as long as it keeps the FPTP electoral system. But there's a difference between a normal level of dominance like Labour/Conservative in the UK or Liberal/Conservative in Canada and the extreme level in the US, and while the Presidency is part of the problem, the core one is that third parties can't build benches because they can't win elections because the people who would fight and win elections for them are, instead, running as radical candidates in major party primaries.
Last edited:
Read the wikipedia page for someone whose life definitely would have been affected by the change in the war: Joseph Meister. He was the *first* person vaccinated against Rabies. Vaccinated by Louis Pasteur... What I can't tell from the thread is whether the Germans ever had control of the area south of the Seine that the Pasteur Institute was in, and if so whether they still had control on 24 June. What is obvious from the story is that the French were *actively* attempting to retake Paris at that point, to the point where fighting could be heard in most of the city (and the Germans didn't have good enough control to keep the information from spreading. Now it is entire possible that iTTL Meister was killed by the fighting in Paris, but I think things do go differently.
From the Wikipedia Article...
As an adult, Meister served as a caretaker at the Pasteur Institute until his death in 1940 at age 64. On 24 June 1940, ten days after the German army occupied Paris during World War II, Meister committed suicide with his gas gun.[4][5]
Although often repeated, the version of his suicide stating he chose to take his life rather than allow the Wehrmacht to enter the Pasteurs' crypt[6] is not sustainable.[7] Instead, a contemporary journal article[8] as well as the testimony of Meister's granddaughter[9] indicate that, fearing for his family's safety, Meister asked them to leave, while he stayed behind to protect the Pasteur institute from the German soldiers. He incorrectly believed this had resulted in them being captured by the Nazis.[10] In a tragic irony, his family returned to the institute a few hours after Meister killed himself.[11][12]
From the Wikipedia Article...
As an adult, Meister served as a caretaker at the Pasteur Institute until his death in 1940 at age 64. On 24 June 1940, ten days after the German army occupied Paris during World War II, Meister committed suicide with his gas gun.[4][5]
Although often repeated, the version of his suicide stating he chose to take his life rather than allow the Wehrmacht to enter the Pasteurs' crypt[6] is not sustainable.[7] Instead, a contemporary journal article[8] as well as the testimony of Meister's granddaughter[9] indicate that, fearing for his family's safety, Meister asked them to leave, while he stayed behind to protect the Pasteur institute from the German soldiers. He incorrectly believed this had resulted in them being captured by the Nazis.[10] In a tragic irony, his family returned to the institute a few hours after Meister killed himself.[11][12]