Challenge: Multi-Party America

The difficulty is maintaining a three-party system. If, say, the Laborists surpass the Republicans as viable presidential candidates, the Republicans will be more politically advantaged by joining one of the other parties, and their party will likely decline into obscurity.

Indeed like with the Liberals in OTL Britain, we could now see two big parties the centre left Labor Party and the conservative Democratic Party with a small radical socially and economically liberal and perhaps largely rural/suburban bohemian Republican Party...

IC: "It's a shame Regan accidently killed his gay lover's dog, he's the best president the US never had".
 
Note there are no references to parties in the US constitution. Washington abhorred political parties, and wished the US to avoid them. Look how well that worked!
But wasn't that only because he (and most of the founding fathers) did not understand the concept of a "loyal opposition" and assumed that all factions were inherently indicators of a non-functioning government?
 
I believe that Norway has a rather rigid fixed term and it certainly has a Parliemantary system, Germany has a system or more or less fixed terms, but with some provision for early elections.

I think a fixed term system is on the whole better, in the UK the sitting Prime Minister has a huge advantage because of it
Um... what?

The UK Parliament is not fixed-term... I assume that's what you meant. The PM (or rather, the reigning monarch acting on the PM's advice) has the power to choose when to dissolve Parliament, i.e. call a General Election. The only restriction is that we have a 5-year upper limit on the Parliamentary term, except in cases of national emergency (last used in WWII).

Um, sorry for the infodump... :eek: so yes, having a fixed term might be a good idea, better for planning.

So. A multiparty US would be rather interesting. Although I don't know much about that topic, maybe if the parties were more regionally-based?
 

Faraday Cage

Events like the Whiskey Rebellion could see a sort of pre-libertarian party rise up (and make the radical Republicans look like Federalists by comparison?). Or Aaron Burr could stick to American politics rather than crazy empire building schemes, go independent, and thus create a party that will pass the test of time.
 
The US did have a national three (or two-and-a-half) party system in the 1850s after the national Whigs imploded. There were the Democrats, Americans (aka Know-Nothings), and the Republicans. If the Democrats hadn't split in 1859-60 (perhaps Taney doesn't go overboard while writing Dred Scott) and the Democrats stay stronger in the North, the Constitutional Union party can hold the balance of power.
 
I'm actually surprised this hasn't come up yet: Harrison/another Whig wins the election of 1836. The Whigs figure out that regional parties work so the Democrats try the same strategy for 1840. Extrapolate from there.
 
The US did have a national three (or two-and-a-half) party system in the 1850s after the national Whigs imploded. There were the Democrats, Americans (aka Know-Nothings), and the Republicans. If the Democrats hadn't split in 1859-60 (perhaps Taney doesn't go overboard while writing Dred Scott) and the Democrats stay stronger in the North, the Constitutional Union party can hold the balance of power.
Um... which one is supposed to be the Republicans (or the Americans)?
 
Top