States could vote by instant run off - this makes it more likely that there would be no absolute majority in the Electoral college and more elections going to the House
 
States could vote by instant run off - this makes it more likely that there would be no absolute majority in the Electoral college and more elections going to the House

Yeah, that's what I mean. I expect a constitutional amendment on the issue so that every election doesn't go to the house.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
How would a multiparty system change the presidential election system? The current system is unworkable with more than two parties, so it would have to be changed. I expect that there would be a switch to a popular vote FPTP system, like in Mexico.
Or two rounds if none secure a majority in the first round (whether electoral votes or popular vote).
 
Whenever the top candidate gets the whole ball of wax, there's an inclination to go for one of the top two, so that your vote actually matters. So here's an option that goes WAY back.

If each state chooses both senators at the same time, then I see a way it can happen. When direct election of senators comes into force with the 17th amendment in 1913, all the senatorial candidates go on one ballot entry, with voters expected to pick two. The top two get the seats.
 
Historically when you had more than two parties in the USA, either the third party had a relatively brief existence, think the "Know-Nothings" or the Socialists, or the new "third" party survived while one of the established parties faded away, think Whigs and Republicans. Then of course there were one time, single issue efforts (Dixiecrats). There are third parties that have a structure, are important in local/state races, and sometimes have folks elected under their banner as opposed to as part of a fusion coalition. Some of these parties have elected folks at the federal level to the house or senate. The problem with an enduring multiparty system is the electoral college system. Because if nine of the candidates gets the 50% + 1 majority votes in the electoral college, the election goes to the House, which tends to make it difficult for a third party to win. Without changing that system, which would be a huge thing, third (or more) parties will remain a local/stae phenomenon unless they become one of the majors, in which case they are no longer a "third party".
 
The best I could do was have the GOP Progressives hold control longer in a second full term TR Presidency and the change to a 6-year Presidential cycle, with no USA involved in the Great War the conservative GOP wing rising again later as the Socialists grow and the Democrats continue to split between Northern progressive/liberal and Southern conservative/segregationist. Briefly one has the Socialists as a minor third party that further afield splits the Northern Democrats into a left-leaning Liberal party, the Progressive dominated GOP shifts rightward as it loses its most left-leaning moderates and the Southern Democrats re-cast as American Conservatives picking up some Northern conservatives once desegregation happens, you have another brief third party era of leftist Democratic Socialists, centrist Republicans and rightist conservative Democrats, but I think the structure forces one to merge or be assimilated. So you once more get a two-party national contest but it could be a more liberal GOP and conservative Democrats, a liberal Democrats and conservative GOP or both parties could be shifted to the left or right generally and simply be more or less left or right with another third party rising to compete on the abandoned ground further right or left as the butterflies in time push the USA. At bottom I can craft cycles of arty divide, three way contests and the next era of new two-party politics, effectively moving the internal wings of each party around as the economy, society and other pressures shift American political debate. In effect I merely have the wings emerging as a third party before finding a home as I think the American debate is rather stuck on a two-sided model.
 
What is that? Are the 'oddities' damaging or a helpful thing?

More interesting than anything.

Like you'll pretty much never see a Republican run without the Conservative nomination or a Democrat run without the Working Families nomination these days.

It also creates an opening for fusion candidates who aren't on the major parties. The Independent mayor of Syracuse got elected with the Independence and Reform Party ballot lines (GOP only got 600 or so votes that race) and sought the libertarian line as well (although there wasn't actually a line for them to give). Supposedly he voted for Johnson.

Gary Johnson was endorsed by the Libertarian Party and the Independence Party (the IP meanwhile has been backing Cuomo and endorsed Schumer for Senate). Most of Johnson's votes in NY actually came from the Independence Line rather than the Libertarian line.

The independence party is weird because it plays ball with big parties to get appointed to county positions (letting itself punch above its weight), has one formally IP member of the legislature, but also served as a means for the GOP and Cuomo to funnel money to the Independent Democratic Caucus (the IDC being the moderate democrats who caucused with the republicans to give them control of the Senate Majority and help Cuomo block the far-left in the state from putting pressure on him).

Cross nomination in NY creates a circumstance where a candidate can run on multiple lines outside of the major parties, but only if the major parties mess up and don't lock down minor party nominations. Meanwhile you probably wouldn't see something like the IDC in another state with the possible exception of the Democrat-Moderate Republican alliance that kept Joe Strauss as speaker in Texas.
 
If the Republican Party never manages to bounce back from the Great Depression, say if there's no double-dip or something, the Democratic Party could wind up such a colossus that it begins to fracture in a way that promotes multiple parties being born from it and continuing, probably at first over segregation.

Someone made a scenario like this a while back, where just a small swing destroyed the GOP, let me see if I can find it...
Here's Wilcoxchar's scenario:

I'm continuing my look at how badly the Republicans could have fallen in the earl 1930s. I already went through the Senate and House. In OTL, the balance of the Senate at the beginning of the 75th Congress was 75 Democrats, 16 Republicans, 2 Farmer-Labor, and 1 Progressive. However, with a slight percentage increase for the Democrats in the 1932, 1934, and 1936 Senate elections, the Republicans could have been down to only 9 Senators. The lone independent is George Norris of Nebraska.

attachment.php


Next is the House, where again the Republicans were already down by a huge margin. In OTL after the 1936 House elections, there were 334 Democrats, 88 Republicans, 8 Progressives (7 in Wisconsin, 1 in California), and 5 Farmer-Labor Representatives. After the tweaking, the shift is even worse, with the Republicans going down to only 40 House members! I also have William Lemke staying a member of the Union Party as Representative, since the Republican Party ITTL is sinking.

df5dxmk.png


Now for the governors. At the beginning of 1937, there were 38 Democratic governors, 8 Republicans, 1 Farmer-Labor, and 1 Progressive. The Republicans were in California (thanks Upton Sinclair), Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, the Dakotas, and for some reason Maryland and New Jersey.

Of these, the previous elections in Maryland, New Jersey, and South Dakota were close. And with William Langer as governor and the Union Party surviving, I could see Langer joining it and bring the Non-Partisan League along with him. So the Republicans at worst could have been down to 4 governorships in 1937. Those governors are Frank Merriam, George Aiken, Francis Murphy, and Lewis Burrows.


With the Republicans this hurt after the Depression, is it likely they would splinter, and what would arise to replace them? I think Hiram Johnson (one of the few surviving R senators) would bolt to the Progressives and boost them in California. The growing gap between conservative Southern Democrats and FDR would probably also lead to a split eventually, while rump Republican parties stay on in the far west and New England.

I've been meaning to put the Senate election summary up for a few days, so here it is. An underline denotes a change from OTL. Additional notes are in brackets.

1932:
AL: Hugo Black (D) reelected
AZ: Carl Hayden (D) reelected
AR: Hattie Caraway (D) elected
CA: William Gibbs McAdoo (D) defeats Tallant Tubbs (R)
CO: Walter Walker (D) reelected [Walker defeats Republican Karl Schuyler in the special election ITTL so it's him instead of Alva Adams]
CT: Augustine Lonergan (D) defeats Hiram Bingham III (R)
FL: Duncan Fletcher (D) reelected
GA: Walter F. George (D) reelected
ID: James Pope (D) defeats John Thomas (R)
IL: William Heinrich (D) defeats Otis Glenn (R)
IN: Frederick Van Nuys (D) defeats James Watson (R)
IA: Richard Murphy (D) defeats Henry Field (R)
KS: George McGill (D) reelected
KY: Alben Barkley (D) reelected
LA: John Overton (D) succeeds Edwin Broussard (D)
MD: Millard Tydings (D) reelected
MO: Bennett Champ Clark (D) succeeds Harry Hawes (D)
NV: Patrick McCarran (D) defeats Tasker Oddie (R)
NH: Fred Brown (D) defeats George Moses (R)
NY: Robert Wagner (D) reelected
NC: Robert Reynolds (D) succeeds Cameron Morrison (D)
ND: Gerald Nye (R) reelected
OH: Robert Bulkley (D) reelected
OK: Elmer Thomas (D) reelected
OR: Frederick Steiwer (R) reelected
PA: Lawrence Rupp (D) defeats James J. Davis (R)
SC: Ellison D. Smith (D) reelected
SD: Peter Norbeck (R) reelected [Norbeck dies on Dec. 20, 1936, Herbert Hitchcock (D) appointed to replace him]
UT: Elbert Thomas (D) defeats Reed Smoot (R)
VT: Porter Dale (R) reelected
WA: Homer T. Bone (D) defeats Wesley Jones (R)
WI: F. Ryan Duffy (D) defeats John Chapple (R)

Special elections:
GA, Class 2: Richard Russell (D) elected
NJ, Class 2: Percy H Stewan (D) defeats W. Warren Barbour (R)

Senate composition at beginning of 73rd Congress: 61 D 34 R 1 FL

1934:
AZ: Henry Ashurst (D) reelected
CA: Hiram Johnson (R) reelected
CT: Francis Maloney (D) defeats Frederick Walcott (R)
DE: Wilbur Adams (D) defeats John Townsend Jr. (R)
FL: Park Trammell (D) reelected
IN: Sherman Minton (D) defeats Arthur R. Robinson (R)
ME: Frederick Dubord (D) defeats Frederick Hale (R)
MD: George Radcliffe (D) defeats Joseph France (R)
MA: David Walsh (D) reelected
MI: Frank Picard (D) defeats Arthur Vandenberg (R)
MN: Henrik Hempstead (FL) reelected
MS: Theodore Bilbo (D) succeeds Hubert Stephens (D)
MO: Harry Truman (D) defeats Roscoe Patterson (R)
MT: Burton K. Wheeler (D) reelected
NE: Edward Burke (D) succeeds Richard Hunter (D)
NV: Key Pittman (D) reelected
NJ: A. Henry Moore (D) defeats Hamilton Kean (R)
NM: Dennis Chavez (D) defeats Branson Cutting (R)
NY: Royal Copeland (D) reelected
ND: Lynn Frazier (R) reelected
OH: Vic Donahey (D) defeats Simeon Hess (R)
PA: Joseph Guffey (D) defeats David Reed (R)
RI: Pete Gerry (D) defeats Keith Herbert (R)
TN: Kenneth McKellar (D) reelected
TX: Tom Connally (D) reelected
UT: William King (D) reelected
VT: Fred C. Martin (D) defeats Warren Austin (R)
VA: Harry Byrd (D) reelected
WA: Lewis Schwellenbach (D) succeeds Clarence Dill (D)
WV: Rush Holt (D) defeats Harry Hatfield (R)
WI: Robert La Follette Jr. (R) reelected as Progressive
WY: Joseph Mahoney (D) reelected

Senate composition at beginning of 74th Congress: 75 D 19 R 1 FL 1 P

Special:
MT, Class 2: James Murray (D) elected
NM, Class 2: Carl Hatch (D) elected
TN, Class 2: Nathan Bachman (D) elected

1936:
AL: John Bankhead II (D) reelected
AR: Joseph T. Robinson (D) reelected
CO: Edwin Johnson (D) succeeds Edward Castigan (D)
DE: James Hughes (D) defeats Daniel Hastings (R)
GA: Richard Russell Jr. (D) reelected
ID: William Borah (R) reelected
IL: James Lewis (D) reelected
IA: Clyde Herring (D) defeats Lester Dickinson (R)
KS: Omar Ketchum (D) defeats Arthur Capper (R)
KY: Marvel Logan (D) reelected
LA: Allen Ellender (D) succeeds Rose McConnell Long (D)
ME: Louis J. Brann (D) defeats Wallace White Jr. (R)
MA: Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. (R) defeats James M. Curley (D) [this is the only Republican pickup in the Senate of the entire cycle]
MI: Prentiss Brown (D) defeats Wilbur Brucker (R)
MN: Ernest Lundeen (FL) succeeds Elmer Benson (FL)
MS: Pat Harrison (D) reelected
MT: James Murray (D) reelected
NE: George Norris (R) reelected as Independent
NH: Styles Bridges (R) succeeds Henry Keyes (R)
NJ: Percy H. Stewan (D) reelected [marked this as a change since W. Warren Barbour lost the special election in '32 here; in OTL William Smathers defeated Barbour]
NM: Carl Hatch (D) reelected
NC: Josiah Bailey (D) reelected
OK: Josh Lee (D) succeeds Thomas Gore (D)
OR: Willis Mahoney (D) defeats Charles McNary (R) [In OTL, Senate minority leader McNary barely held his seat by a 51-48 margin]
RI: Theodore Green (D) defeats Jesse Metcalf (R)
SC: James Byrnes (D) reelected
SD: William Bulow (D) reelected
TN: Nathan Bachman (D) reelected
TX: Morris Sheppard (D) reelected
VA: Carter Glass (D) reelected
WV: Matthew Neely (D) reelected
WY: Harry Schwartz (D) defeats Robert Carey (R)

Special:
FL, Class 1: Charles Andrews (D) succeeds Scott Loftin (D)
FL, Class 3: Claude Pepper (D) succeeds William Luther Hill (D) [both Florida senators died in 1936 and their replacement appointees declined to run to finish their terms]
IA, Class 3: Guy Gilette (D) elected
NM, Class 1: N/A [With Dennis Chavez defeating Branson Cutting in 1934, no special election is needed when Cutting dies]

Senate composition at beginning of 75th Congress: 84 D 8 R 2 FL 1 P 1 I
 
Here's Wilcoxchar's scenario:
I really should do something more with this at some point.

The idea I had was indeed for the Democrats to slowly crack and fracture under their own weight, probably with things fully splintering once FDR dies.

IIRC my original idea would also have small remnant pieces of the GOP left in places like northern New England and the Plains.
 
I really should do something more with this at some point.

The idea I had was indeed for the Democrats to slowly crack and fracture under their own weight, probably with things fully splintering once FDR dies.

IIRC my original idea would also have small remnant pieces of the GOP left in places like northern New England and the Plains.
I imagine the Progressives in the GOP, which make up most of their Senate caucus now it seems, would defect and join the Wisconsin Progressive Party, which may or may not join with the Farmer-Labor Party. A defection of the left to this party (or these two parties) seems likely, while the Southern Dems go independent (probably after FDR dies if he's succeeded by someone pro civil rights like Truman)
 
Historically when you had more than two parties in the USA, either the third party had a relatively brief existence, think the "Know-Nothings" or the Socialists, or the new "third" party survived while one of the established parties faded away, think Whigs and Republicans. Then of course there were one time, single issue efforts (Dixiecrats). There are third parties that have a structure, are important in local/state races, and sometimes have folks elected under their banner as opposed to as part of a fusion coalition. Some of these parties have elected folks at the federal level to the house or senate. The problem with an enduring multiparty system is the electoral college system. Because if nine of the candidates gets the 50% + 1 majority votes in the electoral college, the election goes to the House, which tends to make it difficult for a third party to win. Without changing that system, which would be a huge thing, third (or more) parties will remain a local/stae phenomenon unless they become one of the majors, in which case they are no longer a "third party".
Yeah, I agree with this. The real challenge is for the creation of a different electoral system to allow for multiple parties to survive long term.
 
Hey, by 1948, the Democrats were already kinda fracturing...

So let's say that Robert Lafollette keeps the Progressive party of Wisconsin alive for some reason (maybe they do better in 1942 and 1944's elections), and uses it to defeat Joe McCarthy in '46. So when Henry Wallace begins his 1948 presidential campaign, he has some base in rural areas. So then, let's make sure Henry Wallace isn't a complete fucking idiot, and runs a rural populist campaign with Lafollette as his running mate. The Dixiecrats still split off because Truman is still president, and they get their 2% of the vote and Southern States. However, with Wallace running a more rural-based populist campaign to sweep up Midwestern voters that used to belong to the Farmer-Labor, NPL, or Progressive Party. The ticket probably wins Wisconsin, and could win Minnesota or North Dakota. After the 1948 election, the Progressives basically become the national version of the Farmer-Labor/NPL/American Labor/Progressive Party. Also, Truman still wins that election. Also, the Democrats still pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, with Progressive, Liberal/Moderate Democratic, and Liberal/Moderate Republican support, however, the Republicans do not nominate Barry Goldwater in 1964 (instead the Happy Rockefeller thing doesn't happen, and Nelson Rockefeller wins it at the convention), leading to the creation of a conservative third/forth party. So because of all the parties, the 1964 election goes to the house, and after that long and painful process, it is decided that National Electoral Fusion is the way. Because of this, more political parties enter the scene (especially in the south, because that conservative third/fourth party has a lot of power down there, so opposition needs to get creative.) and the parties become more big-tent, because candidates can be on the hunt for other party's endorsements.

Or something else could happen.
 
The problem with an enduring multiparty system is the electoral college system.
Indeed. The EC does encourage a 'big tent' two party system for the Presidency, and that carries over into the Congressional elections.... the President needs the support of like minded people in Congress to get anything done, so the 'big tent' forms to support elections all around. About the only way to get a lasting multi-party system here is to do away with the EC. What happens next depends a lot on just what other system is adopted...
 
Top