Challenge: Have an American Three-Party System

Have a POD after the Civil War in which the American elections are dominated by three parties instead of two. Bonus points if it's you get creative and kick one of the main OTL parties to be dominant. Double bonus points if you have all three dominant parties as original as you, me, and everyone else. :D
 

Delta Force

Banned
There are a few theories on why the United States has only two major parties, and one is that the first past the post system makes it the only stable system in the long term. If you have two parties that share the same base, a smaller base that is more unified can win with a plurality even though the other two parties have a majority when combined.

So from a systems perspective, under the structure of tbr American political system the two party arrangement is more stable than one with more options, because anything that splits the base increases the likelihood of a losing scenario. It doesn't matter which coalition wins, simply which individual party or candidate gets the most votes.

So basically, this is very unlikely to happen because system dynamics favors a two party solution for the American political system.
 
The only way for this to happen is to have either a parlimentary system or maybe some kind of deep divide on the traditional right and/or left. So maybe, say, Libertarians break away from big-business Democrats (since this is pre-1900), maybe a Socialist party comes to being....
 
There are a few theories on why the United States has only two major parties, and one is that the first past the post system makes it the only stable system in the long term. If you have two parties that share the same base, a smaller base that is more unified can win with a plurality even though the other two parties have a majority when combined.

So from a systems perspective, under the structure of tbr American political system the two party arrangement is more stable than one with more options, because anything that splits the base increases the likelihood of a losing scenario. It doesn't matter which coalition wins, simply which individual party or candidate gets the most votes.

So basically, this is very unlikely to happen because system dynamics favors a two party solution for the American political system.

The 1912 election is a particularly good example of this phenomenon. Teddy Roosevelt and Taft split the votes enough for Wilson to come out on top.

I would think you would need to either modify or abolish the Electoral College in your TL to get a viable third party (or maybe have the Democrats implode in 1912).
 
How about a third party with a steady regional powerbase, that keeps having State legislatures and governors and seats in Representatives and Senate even if they are not likely to get a plain majority in College?

Also, what would happen if Presidents elected in Representatives remained common even after 1824?
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Even with first-past-the-post, multi-party systems can work. But not with an electoral college. As long as it exists, any third party will be temporary. Only a 'regional interests' party can work long-term (think Dixiecrats). In most cases, an unsuccesful third party will fail repeatedly and then fade away/be absorbed... and a succesful third party will replace one of the rivals.
 

Delta Force

Banned
How about a third party with a steady regional powerbase, that keeps having State legislatures and governors and seats in Representatives and Senate even if they are not likely to get a plain majority in College?

Also, what would happen if Presidents elected in Representatives remained common even after 1824?

If I remember correctly, the House votes for President at the delegation level. Each state delegation has one vote. That can either amplify the power of the third party or make it irrelevant for the purposes of throwing the election to Congress. Amplify by increasing the power of small state delegations, and making it irrelevant by failing to achieve a majority. I'm not sure if Congress uses first past the post, but the options are limited. If the two major parties can't win they might reach some kind of political arrangement to sway the third party representatives and perhaps senators to vote for their candidate(s).
 
By precedent of 1801, a President needs a pure majority of State delegations. And a State delegation only casts a vote if one candidate gets a pure majority of State delegates. Otherwise the State vote is "divided".

In 1801, with just 2 candidates, Congress deadlocked: 8 States for Jefferson, 6 for Burr, 2 "divided". They were stuck for several days - and no one knew what would happen if deadlock was not broken.

In 1825, after the "corrupt bargain", Representatives elected President in a single vote - 13 for Adams, 7 for Jackson, 4 for Crawford. Switch just one delegation from Adams to anyone else, OR "divided", and the House would have been deadlocked as it was in 1801. And there were several delegation that could easily have been switched: New York voted 18 for Adams, 2 for Jackson, 14 for Crawford. One voter, and New York would have been "divided". Rhode Island was 2:0:0, so again 1 vote for Adams, Maryland 5:3:1, so again 1 vote, Louisiana 2:1:0, Missouri and Illinois both 1:0:0. Total 6 states that Adams could have lost by 1 vote, and losing any of the 6 would have meant deadlock.

In 1836, a contingent election that Van Buren was going to lose was a deliberate electoral strategy. It failed - narrowly. Faithless electors did send his running mate Mentor Johnson to Senate.
 
Alt-Electoral College

The founders considered having Congress itself serve as the Electoral College. If this were the case, a system similar but not identical to a parliamentary system would likely have developed. A party whose candidate had less than a majority would need to negotiate with others, perhaps for the vice-presidency, policy concessions or cabinet posts.
 
I don't think you necessarily have to eliminate the electoral college but at least get rid of winner take all for the states. That way start up parties can at least get some ground by winning a few electoral votes. If the late 1800s went differently, I could totally see the Republicans splitting into a Progressive Party and a Big-Business Party (Progressives mostly in the port cities where a bunch of immigrants live and Big Business in the Ohio River Vally and Upstate New York where a bunch of industrial stuff happened (rail roads like crazy, dam at Niagra Falls, etc.) with a conservative, slow-to-industrialize Democratic Party keeping a hold in the south. However, in that scenario I think Big Business (which of course wouldn't be the name... Maybe Industrial Party? Or bring back the Whig Party? I'll go with Industrial Party...) would need to branch out in order for it to survive long term. Maybe it starts supporting cattle ranching and gains a hold in Texas and the Midwest? Democratic Party would need to branch out to people like miners in the west. Progressives would probably have a pretty stable and strong base, though.
Maybe 1900 Party Power Comes Out Like This Then (and if Winner-Take-All is eliminated it gets even more interesting):
New England: Solidly Progressive
New York/Pennsylvania: Split Progressive/Industrial
New Jersey: Progressive with Minor Industrial
Maryland/Delaware/Virginia: Probably Open Contest, Maybe Leaning Democrat
West Virginia: Solidly Democrat
Carolina's/Georgia: Solidly Democrat
Florida: Democrat/Progressive?
Alabama/Mississippi: Solidly Democrat
Tennessee/Kentucky: Democrat with Minor Industrial
Ohio/Indiana/Illinois: Industrial with Minor Democrat/Progressive
Michigan/Wisconsin: Lean Industrial?
Upper Midwest: Lean Industrial
Colorado: Progressive with Minor Democrat
Utah: Industrial with Minor Democrat
Nevada: Progressive/Democrat
Missouri/Arkansas/Texas: Democrat with Minor Industrial
West Coast: Progressive with Minor Democrat?


That Would Bring a 1900 Election to be Something like This (as an example only):
Industrial: 142
Democrat:160
Progressive: 145
(Note: That is a very rough approximation, though I might take this idea into a TL later where I'd work with everything individually)

Anyways, in that election, you needed 224 Electoral Votes to win, and no one reached that amount, it gets thrown to Congress. And I'm sure that would be a common thing to happen in this three party system (which may lead to the electoral college being taken out entirely or a re-instating of winner-take-all, in truth, but I think WTA would need to be taken out for a strong third party to rise up, even if it was the Republicans splitting up).



So essentially:
Progressive is the Party of Teddy Roosevelt and gets it's power base from cities, with minor power coming from immigrant workers working more inland.
Industrial is the Party of McKinley and gets a lot of it's power where the big industrialists developed a lot, and is the party with a bunch of funding because of it's wealthy backers. It also would've branched out to some of the empire-building ranchers and what not, gaining it a little bit of power in the Midwest.
Democrat is the Party of... I can't think of a historical figure. They would mostly focus on farmers/ranchers in the Deep South, but would have to branch out to the people who lived in the Midwest.

In Summary: Eliminate Winner-Take-All in the Electoral College (this creates a probability for more elections like 1824) and Split the Republican Party in the late 1800s (Before McKinley becomes President and before Teddy Roosevelt can be on the same party ticket as him, is a big thing).

Thoughts? Viable Third Party??
 

Redhand

Banned
Have the divorce between the Dixiecrats and New Dealers be uglier than OTL with Nixon failing to capitalize, and with Wallace and Thurmond as central figures. Maybe also you could have the Minnesota Farm Labor party expand and get a regional power base. Long lasting segregation could make the first come about. Also, a harsher depression could lead to Socialists gain power or maybe even the Silver Legion. Both of these would need a lot to happen to go from populist movements to legitimate parts of the establishment.
 
Perhaps a regional balance could do? Based on a situation that develops in an alternate 1890s:

Midwest & West: Republicans versus Populists
Northeast: Republicans versus Democrats
South: Democrats versus Populists


Have the divorce between the Dixiecrats and New Dealers be uglier than OTL with Nixon failing to capitalize, and with Wallace and Thurmond as central figures.
Perhaps take out Nixon and Goldwater and the conservatives all together, and have Rockefeller's wing dominate the GOP? Then the Dixiecrats would definitely not go Republican when they left the Democratic Party.
 
The only way for this to happen is to have either a parlimentary system or maybe some kind of deep divide on the traditional right and/or left. So maybe, say, Libertarians break away from big-business Democrats (since this is pre-1900), maybe a Socialist party comes to being....

The big-business Democrats of the pre-1900 era (by which I assume you mean the Bourbon Democrats -- for the most part the Democrats were the party of labor in this period) almost essentially were the libertarians of their time. Right-libertarian gold bugs, more or less. Or as close as you can get any time before the Sexual Revolution, anyway.

This is really how you would have to do it, though. The broad strokes of a deep ideological divide creating a third political power base which doesn't mesh well enough with either of the two existing ones to stay in a durable coalition. Getting urban labor to be significantly more pro-civil rights, somehow (I don't know how, may be impossible considering how deeply racist urban white labor has always been in this country) would create a permanent split between a big business and moralist middle class dominated Republican Party, a Deep South white supremacist Democratic Party, and an urban, multi-racial Labor Party.

The arguments about how FPTP means permanent two party system in the US are based on some assumptions about how FPTP works that don't hold for all FPTP systems. Allowing fusion voting again (where two different parties can nominate the same candidate for the same seat) would pair nicely with a situation where a third party pops into existence and forms part of a partisan triumvirate which is mutually antagonistic to too great a degree for reconciliation and reformation into a two party system.

John Calhoun actually predicted something like a stable two party system in his essay Disquisition on Government, and then lived through the birth of the first real three party system in US history surrounding the issue of slavery. That system turned out to not be stable because of how quickly Mr Lincoln made slavery not an issue anymore but a persistent set of issues that can keep major bases separate for good could very well be stable, with different bases forming very temporary coalitions around individual issues they can agree on and then going back to being enemies as soon as a bill is passed.

The real question is whether a government based on this system could be persistent. It sounds very unstable and would be vulnerable to collapse of disintegration.
 
Top