AHC/PC: At least one Regional Party in US House and Senate by 2010

[NothingNow]

So, with a POD from 1800 onward, have at least one Regional Party in the United States with at least 3 Seats in the House and one in the Senate.
The Party cannot be a Protest or Splinter Party, but instead has to be a party rooted in the Region and with a Multicycle presence in Congress, in at least one State Government and on the ballot.

Bonus points for the Party being powerful enough to Require a coalition in one of the legislative Houses. (This could be as simple as the Senate being split 49-48-3.)

And yeah, is this plausible, or would the American 2 Party System essentially prevent it from becoming a long term thing?

 

[NothingNow]

Seriously? Nothing?

I'll throw some starting points in then:
1) A Cajun/Creole party in Louisiana and the Gulf Coast, mostly pushing for language rights, and things like that.
2) An Agrarian party from the Midwest/Old west descended from the Free Silver movement and the Farmer-Labor Party.

Anyone think either of these would have been able to fulfill the conditions of the POD?

 

[wilcoxchar]

Could a Hispanic-oriented party gain some votes in the Southwest, in places like New Mexico and some California and Texas districts? If you get more Hispanic immigration, you could see a regional party pop up during the Chicano movement, and New Mexico could be majority Hispanic by now.

 

[imperialaquila]

Any way to keep the Dixiecrats as a political party? They could fulfill the POD requirements. They'd run into serious problems after the Civil Rights Movement, but I could easily see them keeping a 10-12 seats in the House.

 

[strangeland]

Tougher than it sounds, because regionalism is actually fairly weak in the U.S. A Dixiecrat party that doesn't merge with the Republicans for whatever reason is probably the best way to do this.

 

[wolf_brother]

Perhaps the Alaskan Independence Party, which is associated with the Constitution Party, is more successful, especially circa 90s and the birth of the anti-govt survivalists anti-'ZOG' movement, eventually leading to it dropping the 'Alaskan' part of the title and becoming the Independence Party, which is an 'America for Americans'-style party which does well in highly rural states such as Alaska, Idaho, Wyoming & Montana. At most, two Senators and six Representatives; leading to a 'coalition'-style government required for major legislation in the Senate.

Highly unlikely though

 

[TheSevenLeggedFallyDowner]

The only place where regionalism is a significant force is in the South, so it will almost certainly have to happen there. Here's my best attempt:

In 1938, FDR targeted certain southern conservative Democrats for primary challenges. His hope was to replace them with more staunch New Dealers. So let's say that ITTL, he looks at the numbers (75-17 in the Senate, 334-88 in the House) and realizes that he has assembled such a huge coalition that he can afford to alienate a few. So he pushes even harder to purge the southern Democrats, and even tries to ram through some civil rights legislation. It backfires and all of his targets survive. The southerners are angry at this blatant attempt to marginalize them, but they aren't quite willing to join the Republicans yet since they memories of Appomattox are still too recent. So the southern Democrats split off and form their own party. In essence, the Dixiecrats have started up 10 years early. The difference is that ITTL the movement is far more powerful and actually lasts. Segregation eventually ends anyway, pretty much like OTL, but the party remains out of social inertia. By the present day, the party is similar to the modern day Republicans. They put a larger emphasis on state's rights and local control, and are more socially conservative, but otherwise the same. The South is firmly controlled by the Dixiecrats and the Republicans, with the Democrats existing as a solely African American party. On a national level, the Dems are a bit further to the left than OTL, since they didn't have the South as a ballast for all of those years. The Republicans are socially a bit more moderate (since the main population of social conservatives is in the South), but otherwise unchanged.

 

[Midas]

What you propose is contradictory to the institution incentives provided by the U.S.'s first-past-the-post system. In FTTP in the U.S., parties that orient strongly around clevages that strongly override the traditional left-right split may be able to maximize on 'regional' interests. However there's always an incentive to co-ordinate actions with other powerful actors. It's certainly plausible; but there are strong incentives for it not to be permanent.

Perhaps if you prevent the Democrats and Republicans from enacting machine politics early on you can stem the tide that works against some regional parties that emerged in the U.S. However, by and large, unless there's a pretty significant clevage for them to exploit that's long-lasting I really don't see how this is possible just given the way U.S. politics is designed. Perhaps the best places would be in a U.S. Cuba, Puerto Rican state or a much uglier Reconstruction-South (perhaps one in which the Jim Crow laws are never enacted). Or perhaps the Libertarians agree to settle in Wyoming and turn it over to that party haha.

So, with a POD from 1800 onward, have at least one Regional Party in the United States with at least 3 Seats in the House and one in the Senate.
The Party cannot be a Protest or Splinter Party, but instead has to be a party rooted in the Region and with a Multicycle presence in Congress, in at least one State Government and on the ballot.