AHC - Make the US into a Multi-party system in place of a Two-party system

. . . John Marshall didn't invent judicial review; the idea was very well established by the end of the 18th century (it's also mentioned in the Federalist Paperd) and thus implicitly contained in Article III of the US constitution.

but I’m seeing . . .

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

Article III, section 2:

“ . . . with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make. . . ”
To me, that’s pretty clearly stating that judicial review isn’t even implicitly part of Article III.

And I think, that regarding the judiciary, the wisest and most far-seeing aspect of the U.S. Constitution is that it gives a limited and specific definition that treason “shall consist only . . . ”
 
Last edited:
There are FPTP systems with viable third parties. Britain, for example, in the Mother of Parliaments.

What you need is a political force distinct enough in a particular region that isn't served well by the major parties. The classic example is the South, due to its long and troubled history (or perception of the same, racism and segregation were hardly unique to the South, but only the South seceded over race issues). The Dixiecrats, of course, or the AIP could be good starting points there.

But there are other possibilities. Perhaps with a later WW1 (or one without Woodrow Wilson at the helm) a stronger Socialist Party might ensue in places in the Mountain West or the Upper Midwest (who at that time already had a reputation for radicalism, in other ways, like with free silver or with Populism generally). Or one of the many fringe ideologies of the Great Depression finds roots among the farmers (Social Credit, for example.)

Will it necessarily lead to third party presidential victories or kingmaker scenarios? Unlikely, but they could do so at the Congressional and state house levels (and did to an extent OTL).

It's honestly a bit of a copout to say that a srrict two party system is inevitable because of FPTP or the EC system. Change a few events slightly (like no Wilson, or a later WWII, or an alternate George Wallace strategy, and butterflies might lead to a different partisan landscape even as the basic sociological tensions remain as OTL.
 
That would be difficult because American parties are not parties in the European sense they are more like coalition governments.
Every time a third-party arises it is either absorbs another party what another party adopts some of its more popular policies and absorbs it.
 
There are FPTP systems with viable third parties. Britain, for example, in the Mother of Parliaments.
Not really. The 'third parties' are either regionally strong, e.g. the SNP and DUP, or deprived of the appropriate seat share their support would justify, e.g. the LDP.
As Duverger's Law states, FPTP leads to two party systems.
 
Last edited:
[QUOTE="Jackson Lennock, post: 19184942, member: 109224"]
The Two-Party System in the US only works if you have two big-tent parties
that are able to compete all over the place and have a shot at winning in enough places consistently. You can have two parties at the presidential level without this being the case at the legislative level.[/QUOTE]
Actually no. First Past the Post voting leads to two party systems
In political science it's referred to as Duverger's law (wiki).
 
[QUOTE="Jackson Lennock, post: 19184942, member: 109224"]
The Two-Party System in the US only works if you have two big-tent parties
that are able to compete all over the place and have a shot at winning in enough places consistently. You can have two parties at the presidential level without this being the case at the legislative level.
Actually no. First Past the Post voting leads to two party systems
In political science it's referred to as Duverger's law (wiki).[/QUOTE]

It leads to two political parties in a given area. There's no reason why in a country of 330 million poeple with severe regional differences in culture and social/economic output, you can't have various sets of two parties in differing areas. That the parties used to be much bigger tents is why two parties were sufficient in the US - candidates were allowed to be flexible from the national party and build their own brands and own factional brands.

The nationalization of politics has made that process very difficult. Phil Bredesen in 2018, for example, ought to have been a shoe-in in that Senate race (he's a heck of a lot more like a typical Alexander/Corker/Haslam/Gore/Thompson Tennessee statewide official than Blackburn is, and he landslided in 2010) but the national brand was an albatross around his neck. Had he run as an independent, as his friend Bob Corker encouraged him to do, he probably would have won.

Indeed, in the US there are large swathes of the country that are effectively one-party. However, due to the openness of US primaries you end up with the primary system being the pressure release valve for a lot of folks dissatisfied with the party. Or you have cases like California with its top-2 system where you are starting to routinely have democrat vs democrat elections but these elections have clear factional divides: Blue dog/business dem v traditional liberal or tech-progressive v traditional liberal being the main two that seem to pop up.
 
tx-Artboard_1.png


Red = Republican, Gray = Tossup, Blue = Democrat

A Congress for Every American, New York Times, Editorial, Nov. 11, 2018

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/10/opinion/house-representatives-size-multi-member.html

' . . . the alternative — districts that send multiple members to Congress — was the norm at the nation’s founding. . . '
First off, you increase the size of the U.S. House to 593 members. And then each district elects three, or five, members.

The upside is if I'm in a 40% minority in my district, I can probably elect at least one rep to Congress. At least that's what this NYTimes editorial is saying.

===============

And seems like a heck of a good way to get a multi-party Congress! :)

You have multi-member districts with 1-2-3-4-5 preference voting (a voter can go as shallow or deep as he or she chooses).
 
Last edited:
There are FPTP systems with viable third parties. Britain, for example, in the Mother of Parliaments.

What you need is a political force distinct enough in a particular region that isn't served well by the major parties. The classic example is the South, due to its long and troubled history (or perception of the same, racism and segregation were hardly unique to the South, but only the South seceded over race issues). The Dixiecrats, of course, or the AIP could be good starting points there.

Britain was actually something of an exception to that for a while, in that the Liberals and later the Lib Dems were the largest third party in parliament and weren't strictly regionally based.

Another possibility might be that certain smaller parties negotiate non-competition agreements with the Democrats or the Republicans in certain states or House districts, like maybe a social democratic, union-affiliated party in big cities and industrial areas that supports Democrats for President and congressional leadership. Though the end result of this might be something like the Australian Liberal-National Coalition, where the two parties come to be perceived as little different from a single entity and independent and minor-party candidates start to encroach on National's territory as the party of rural Australia.
 
Top