AHC:Republicans killed as a major party in Depression

samcster94

Banned
I think there are two separate questions here. The first is why the US has a tendency to two-partyism, and things like first-past-the-post and the presidential system may help to explain that. But there is a separate question--why have the two major parties been the same parties since the Civil War era? The tendency to two parties doesn't mean they must always be the same parties. In the US, there were first the Jeffersonian Republicans versus the Federalists; then there was the Jackson Party versus the Adams Party, with the Jacksonians increasingly calling themselves Democrats and the Adams supporters calling themselves National Republicans; then there were the Democrats versus the Whigs; then in the 1850's when it was clear the Whigs were dying, there was a transition period when it wasn't clear whether the main opposition party to the Democrats would be the Republicans or the Americans (Know Nothings). But after the Republicans won out over the Americans, there have been no further changes in the identity of the major parties. And why that is so, is the question I am asking. [1] It may be that the institutional obstacles to new parties are not the answer--at least not all of it--but then we have to ask what is. (I think part of it had to do with the legacy of the Civil War solidifying people's self-identification as Democrats or Republicans. Thus, in 1884 some reform-minded Republicans still reluctantly supported Blaine because they saw the Democrats as the party of "treason" during the Civil War; in the 1890's many radical southern Democrats refused to join the Populists, because only the Democrats were seen as a "white man's party." This historical attachment also kept conservative southerners nominal Democrats in the 1930's and 1940's, even though they were closer to the Republicans on economic issues. And the very fact that unlike the Federalists, National Republicans, Whigs, and Know Nothings, the Republicans endured for decade after decade may have made people take Democrats-vs.-Republicans as the natural order of things, and thus ensured their further survival.)

[1] And note that the changes I have mentioned were not just changes in party names. The National Republicans were not the Federalists under another name; both JQ Adams and Clay had been Jeffersonian Republicans, and some ex-Federalists like Louis McLane joined the Jacksonians. The Whigs were not just the National Republicans under another name; they included Antimasons and even southern Nullifiers. The Republicans weren't just the northern Whigs under another name, either; especially in states where the Whigs had been weak, like Michigan, they attracted many ex-Democrats, while many conservative ex-Whigs joined the Democrats.
The Postbellum era, if you play your cards right, is another obvious candidate.
 
On the ballot thing--which Britons among us can explain how one votes for Parliament MPs. Is it a state produced ballot, or do you write the candidate in, or what?
It's a state produced ballot, which has the names of every candidate who's standing. In order to be a candidate you first have to put down a deposit of £500, which you won't get back unless you get 5% of the vote. The vast majority of these candidate are effectively paper candidates, as Labour and the Conservatives both have 200 -odd seats that they can count on to stay safe(although upsets happen- the most recent election saw both of the biggest parties gaining seats which the other are held even in landslide defeats).

Parties tend to vary on how many candidates they'll put up for an election. The three biggest parties contest every seat in Great Britain (Northern Ireland has it's own party system). UKIP and the Greens don't contest every seat but do contest a majority of them (this will probably change- UKIP is falling apart and the Greens are losing a lot of voters and members to Labour). The regionalist parties don't contest outside of their regions and the numerous minor parties will just contest a handful, mostly just places where they have an active member who feels like standing for parliament.

Then there's the independents of various stripes. They're generally seen as a bit of a joke but a few have managed to become MP's thanks to running good local campaigns. The most high-profile recent examples are TV reporter Martin Bell, who defeated a notoriously corrupt Conservative incumbent with the backing of Labour and the Liberal Democrats and Dr. Richard Taylor, who campaigned on defending a local hospital.
 
Top