Challenge: 3 party US system

Rockefeller Republicans continue to dominate the*GOP and southern dixiecrats and taftite conservatives go through with a long conceptualized plan to form a "Conservative Party."

Either that or the populist party survives in the 1890s.

Eh, Populists always struck me as more of a 19th century Tea Party, lot of fuss and bluster but not much substance.

The solidified "right" Conservative Party seems intriguing to me though. Do you think this would lead to a more liberal/centrist Republican Party?
 

JoeMulk

Banned
Eh, Populists always struck me as more of a 19th century Tea Party, lot of fuss and bluster but not much substance.

The solidified "right" Conservative Party seems intriguing to me though. Do you think this would lead to a more liberal/centrist Republican Party?

I think so yeah, I think that it would happen as a result of Rockefeller getting the nomination in 64 and there being a consensus on issues like civil rights.
 
I disagree with people who argue that the U.S. system of first-past-the-post is what entrenched the two-party system. Not only Canada stands in opposition to this, but also Mexico, the United Kingdom, and India (in their lower house). It's also used in a buttload of minor former British colonies, particularly in the Caribbean, but I know next to nothing about their political cultures.

Regardless, I would say the entrenched two-party system is due to both the first-past-the post system, as well as the strong level of executive power a president wields in the United States. While it's theoretically possible, for example, for the Dixiecrats to remain an organized regional party, it's near ASB to imagine a Dixiecrat president ever. Hence, when parties factionalize it's always better to fold into someone, else you'll effectively be shut out of the executive corridors of power forever.

Bottom line is without a parliamentary U.S., I don't see it happening.

Well that was my point: it was FPTP plus presidentialism. By themselves, either feature biases the system towards a two-party or two-bloc system, but if each feature is used by itself there is still some space for third parties. Combining the two makes a two-party system far more likely.
 
Only problem with that is what keeps the Dixiecrats from being irrelevant on that federal level, or is that the actual reality of their situation, doomed to state issues and southern support?

The Dixiecrats could easily wind up in their frequent OTL situation where neither major party has a majority in Congress, but the Dixiecrats have enough votes to give a majority to either party on any given piece of legislation. That would put them in a strong national position.
 
The thing is any 3 party system is doomed to have 2 that at some point combine, to challenge the 3rd when they gain power. The key is to have a 4th party, two moderates on both sides and a conservative and liberal party.That is the only way to keep it balanced and avoid a long term coalition.
Indeed, the state Democratic parties in North Dakota and Minnesota are in fact mergers with the Non-Partisan League and the Farmer-Labor party, respectively.
 
Only problem with that is what keeps the Dixiecrats from being irrelevant on that federal level, or is that the actual reality of their situation, doomed to state issues and southern support?

Republicans seem to be in the best position and the Democrats can just take any of the more conservative voters that aren't in the south, but without them, they'll be much weaker.

I'm thinking with a PoD somewhere in the Gilded Age or early 1900's, the Socialist Party could exist as a third party that throws off the balance between Democrats and Republicans, provided the two parties don't co-opt socialist planks into their platforms like OTL.
Such a scenario would be similar to my position but would probably be Republican-Socialist-Democrat instead of Republican-Democrat-Dixiecrat. Basically the Dems become the Dixiecrats.

The Dixiecrats could easily wind up in their frequent OTL situation where neither major party has a majority in Congress, but the Dixiecrats have enough votes to give a majority to either party on any given piece of legislation. That would put them in a strong national position.
That's what the Dixiecratic party is all about. And considering the Democratic Party in the US is really just a federation of state parties, the Dixiecrats will start out with good infastructure and a stranglehold on Southern politics. Like PQ, but on steroids.
 
The Progressive Party seemed viable, but its start is needed sooner. POD: Franklin Roosevelt steps aside in 1940, and his successor, while a Democrat, proves to be more conservative. The net result is that the more leftward of New Dealers get together with more moderate elements of the Socialist Party and form a new Progressive Party. The guy elected in 1940 is succeeded by a Republican in 1948 following a divided vote, and the Progressives set their sights on 1952 or 1956 while the Democratic Party becomes more firmly populist and indifferent at best on civil rights. The Progressives are liberal fiscally and socially, while the Republicans sit between the two, being a fiscally cnservative party with both socially conservative and socially liberal wings.
 
Top