AHC: At least 3 Parties in the US

Your best bet is to just have a quirky regional party that takes the place of one of the major parties in that region, like how the Christian Social Union is basically the Bavarian version of the Christian Democratic Union.

You could accomplish this with the Dixiecrats, or with Progressives in a state or two. They'd normally caucus with their mother party, but they can be kingmakers in some instances.
 

dead_wolf

Banned
The thing is, in the American political system, a succesful third party is most likely to eventually supplant one of the other two. The best way to get a multi-party system is through institutional changes.

Get rid of the electoral college, and have the President elected by popular vote. That gives third candidates a real shot, making more people inclined to vote for such a candidate. With a shot at the presidency, third party candidates will also find it easier to get elected to congress.

And there you go. :D

The issue isn't the electoral college, it's first-past-the-post. You see the same thing in Britain, Canada, S. Korea, etc.
 
Forget Australia. South Africa for it's latest election has a registered 189 political parties available. That's my definition of chaos on a massive scale.

And South Africa is at best a fraction of the size with a fraction of the population of the US.

Those are simply parties that are registered with the Electoral Commission, not all of them will compete in the national elections.

33 parties will be on the national ballot for this election.

Less than 15 will make it to Parliament, perhaps only 10.

http://www.elections.org.za/content...tical-parties-set-to-contest-7-May-elections/
 
I have an idea kicking around that somebody way back in the Constitutional Convention in 1787 suggest basic run-off elections being written in to the Constitution for the House of Representatives. Based on someobody having the idealistic idea that sometimes more than 2 exemplary citizens will want to run for the same office in this new truly democratic nation, or somesuch.

Now, at first, the Federalists and Anti-Feds still create a de facto two-party system, with the occasional independants and dissidents not making much of a splash. The Big Change comes with how as new State Constitutions are drafted, they ALSO include basic two-round run-off elections for legislatures, and probably governors and so on. So, now the skeleton for three-party politics is being quietly established before 1800 under what is otherwise the OTL Constitution. This is my big idea, the paragraph after is a lot more flimsy. But with two-round runoffs the norm from the get-go, the likelyhood of multiparty politics seriously taking off after the second industrial revolution, that is, after 1880 or so, is greatly increased.

The Electoral College was very fluid and different from today's between 1800 and 1828, with different states trying different things. One model that could Just Maybe get established as the norm rather than winner-takes-all would be for each Elector to be assigned a single district in a state that is voted on by the people (but using FPTP voting). In a political situation wherein there are Two Big Parties and one or two small parties that consistently get representation, the Electoral College being broken into small units would make the "spoiler effect" less likely, resulting possibly in less blame and tactical voting hurting the small parties. This basically reduces the effects of Duverger's Law. OR I COULD BE TOTALLY WRONG HERE LOL. In that case, disregard this whole paragraph.
 
The issue isn't the electoral college, it's first-past-the-post. You see the same thing in Britain, Canada, S. Korea, etc.
Both Canada and the UK (I don't know anything about S. Korean politics) support significant 3rd parties that make up a large chunk of the government (and in the UK's case, are currently in the governing coalition). It's very different from the US.

It's really the presidency that makes it a problem; you could award votes by any vaguely majoritarian method, and it wouldn't change that there can only be 1 president, so vote-splitting is counterproductive (look at 2000; many Democrats still haven't forgiven Nader for "throwing the election", and both the Green Party and Libertarian/Constitution Parties routinely attract major funding from donors on the opposite end of the spectrum, hoping for a spoiler effect).
 

dead_wolf

Banned
Both Canada and the UK (I don't know anything about S. Korean politics) support significant 3rd parties that make up a large chunk of the government (and in the UK's case, are currently in the governing coalition). It's very different from the US.

Britain's Liberal Democrats, as pointed out by Meadow up thread, aren't a significant party in the sense that they're never going to take control. Canada's Liberals are much the same way. They're more a protest vote against the two major parties than they are a viable political platform in-and-of themselves; which is exactly like the Populists were in the US in the Gilded Age, or more recently Nader or other independent-runs.

It's really the presidency that makes it a problem; you could award votes by any vaguely majoritarian method, and it wouldn't change that there can only be 1 president, so vote-splitting is counterproductive (look at 2000; many Democrats still haven't forgiven Nader for "throwing the election", and both the Green Party and Libertarian/Constitution Parties routinely attract major funding from donors on the opposite end of the spectrum, hoping for a spoiler effect).

If that were true, then why aren't there any third-party Senators or Representatives, or major third parties in control of state legislatures? It's not the Presidency, it's FPTP.
 

toto

Banned
National Popular Vote - Over Half Way

To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.

Instead, by state laws, without changing anything in the Constitution, The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by replacing state winner-take-all laws.


Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps pre-determining the outcome. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

[FONT=&quot]The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of Electoral College votes—that is, enough to elect a President (270 of 538). The candidate receiving the most popular votes from all 50 states (and DC) would get all the 270+ electoral votes of the enacting states.[/FONT]

The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founders. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founders in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Historically, major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).
Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls
in recent or past closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA --75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%;
in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%;
in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and
in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%.
Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, and large states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 10 jurisdictions with 136 electoral votes – 50.4% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc
 
National Popular Vote bill

National Popular Vote bill would probably face a legal challenge. When states passed term limits for federal office the Supreme Court ruled that only congress could change the law about term limits. I would excerpt them to rule the same way.
 

toto

Banned
Supreme Court Recognizes States' Rights

National Popular Vote bill would probably face a legal challenge. When states passed term limits for federal office the Supreme Court ruled that only congress could change the law about term limits. I would excerpt them to rule the same way.

[FONT=&quot]National Popular Vote is based on Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives each state legislature the right to decide how to appoint its own electors. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Article II, Section 1[/FONT]:
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."




[FONT=&quot]There is no federal power -- much less federal supremacy -- in the area of awarding of electoral votes.

[/FONT]
 
Britain's Liberal Democrats, as pointed out by Meadow up thread, aren't a significant party in the sense that they're never going to take control. Canada's Liberals are much the same way. They're more a protest vote against the two major parties than they are a viable political platform in-and-of themselves; which is exactly like the Populists were in the US in the Gilded Age, or more recently Nader or other independent-runs.

You must mean the New Democratic Party. The Liberal Party has governed Canada many, many times.
 
[FONT=&quot]National Popular Vote is based on Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives each state legislature the right to decide how to appoint its own electors. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Article II, Section 1[/FONT]:
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

[FONT=&quot]There is no federal power -- much less federal supremacy -- in the area of awarding of electoral votes.

[/FONT]

Exactly. If the states legally chose to apportion electoral votes based on the weather or a coin flip, the federal government could do nothing to stop them.
 
Top