Multi-Party United States

[Emperor Julian]

How could the United States, instead of being dominated by a two-party system, be a multi-party state in the modern day? It can have as few as three major parties, or as many as possible. The requirements to be a major party are to hold have than one governor, House Representative, and Senator of that party.

Preferably the US should be fairly close to OTL, not broken up or something like that, though they can be worse off or better off by a small margin. You can have other countries be in whatever situation you please. Also, though I put this in the after 1900 forum, if the only way you can possibly think of for the US two party binary to be broken is before 1900, you can post that.

 

[Lord Grattan]

Perhaps abolition of the Electoral College could have come during the progressive era. How could the clamor for elected US senators be turned into clamoring for a popularly elected President & Vice President?

 

[asupackman]

Have the Electoral college either not put into place or abolished early on and have a popular vote for president so that third and fourth parties actually look attractive and either have a chance at winning or gaining enough support that they can have influence. Or have some sort of system where electors are awarded by percentage instead of winner take all.

 

[Turquoise Blue]

Have the Republican Party implode sometime in the 1930s. A Progressive Conservative Party could work with FDR on some issues, while a National Party would refuse.

Democratic/PC/National


Then have the PCs and Nationals get used to being in coalition in Congress. Then after Reagan wins in a landslide in 1984, the Dems implode.

Labor/Liberal/Moderate/PC/National

Then have the Moderates (which are essentially Blue Dogs) merge with the PCs, with some going Liberal. Oh, and the Libertarians rises fast.

So, a coalition, and presidential elections working like Brazilian ones would work.

So...

UPC (United Progressive Coalition)
Labor (OTL Progressives and Soc. Dems)
Liberal (Social liberals and latte liberals)

Depends on the main issues. (Economic ACI, Social UPC)
Libertarian (You know them.)

ACI (Alliance for Conservatism and Integrity)
PC (MSP and moderate Republicans)
National (Tea Party and Constitution Party.)

 

[Emperor Julian]

Have the Republican Party implode sometime in the 1930s. A Progressive Conservative Party could work with FDR on some issues, while a National Party would refuse.

Democratic/PC/National


Then have the PCs and Nationals get used to being in coalition in Congress. Then after Reagan wins in a landslide in 1984, the Dems implode.

Labor/Liberal/Moderate/PC/National

Then have the Moderates (which are essentially Blue Dogs) merge with the PCs, with some going Liberal. Oh, and the Libertarians rises fast.

So, a coalition, and presidential elections working like Brazilian ones would work.

So...

UPC (United Progressive Coalition)
Labor (OTL Progressives and Soc. Dems)
Liberal (Social liberals and latte liberals)

Depends on the main issues. (Economic ACI, Social UPC)
Libertarian (You know them.)

ACI (Alliance for Conservatism and Integrity)
PC (MSP and moderate Republicans)
National (Tea Party and Constitution Party.

A really good idea. My one question is how would a Progressive Conservative work, aren't those opposite groups? At least since the progressive Roosevelt broke from the conservative Taft in 1912.

I think everyone who's stated that the electoral college being abolished would help third parties is right. Would that plausibly occur though?

 

[Turquoise Blue]

A really good idea. My one question is how would a Progressive Conservative work, aren't those opposite groups? At least since the progressive Roosevelt broke from the conservative Taft in 1912.

I think everyone who's stated that the electoral college being abolished would help third parties is right. Would that plausibly occur though?

Don't ask me. Progressive conservatism is confusing... They'll probably be just liberal conservatives.

 

[LostCosmonaut]

I think you'd probably have to get rid of FPTP for this to work, at least on a national scale. Something like IRV would probably be good.

 

[thekingsguard]

I could see a four party system, based on the politcal compass:

Republicans (government/economically right, social right)
OTL Conservative Republicans. Base in South and the rural areas of the coasts.

Populists (government/economically left, social right)
Think OTL Moral Majority as a political party, as well as some blue dog Democrats. Main base in the South and bits of the Result Belt.

Democrats (government/economically left, social left)
OTL Liberal Democrats. Base on the Coasts and big cities.

Libertarians (government/economically right, social left)
Like OTL Libertarians. Main base is in the West and parts of the coasts and rust belt.

 

[Zacoftheaxes]

The real problems with third parties are ballot access, media coverage, and the fact the government gives money to Republicans and Democrats but not to third parties.

 

[Turquoise Blue]

OK... Maybe Upton Sinclair could be Governor of California, bringing more socialism in the Democratic Party, which collapses in 1954.

Thus Labor, Liberal.

So, more of a three-party system. But that's not all.

The Republicans collapse in the 1930s, creating two parties.

Moderate, National.

Agrarian anger ends up with the Plains states of the Mods and Nats creating their own party, the Country Party.


So, four parties. Add a few more...

UPC
Labor: Social Democracy, Progressivism, some Dem. socialism as well.
Liberal: Social liberalism and latte liberalism. Some economic liberals.
Ecologist: Green ideology, Soc. Dem.

Non-Aligned
Liberty: OTL left-libertarianism, with lots of right-libertarianism in.
American Independent: States' rights. Popular in the Deep South.

ACI
Moderate: Moderate conservatism, leaning libertarian at times.
National: Fundamentalist conservatism, without states' rights.
Country: Agrarian conservatism. Strong in Plains states.

 

[Lleibi]

Is it ASB that the US evolves from a presidentialist democracy to a parlamentarian one?

 

[SonOfFreedom]

Thekingsguard: there's a lot of social conservatives who are libertarians. The biggest examples are Ron and Rand Paul. Also look at guys like Thomas Massie (running for congress in Kentucky), Carlos May (running for congress against Andre Carson in Indiana), Chard Reid (running for congress in Indiana as an actual member of the Libertarian Party and has my endorsement in the 5th District).

 

[NKVD]

Have proportional representation not be repealed due to the spectre of communism hanging over America (IIRC, proportional representation was repealed in places like NYC because it allowed communists to be elected).

Another possibility, I explored in an aborted TL idea I had years ago: the Federalist Party officially breaks apart, instead of remaining one divided party as in OTL. Vote splitting threatens the Federalists in the election of (IIRC) 1800, so in a hurry the Federalist-dominated state legislatures pass some sort of election method that will prevent the Democratic-Republicans from dominating.

 

[Turquoise Blue]

Is it ASB that the US evolves from a presidentialist democracy to a parlamentarian one?

No. There were serious discussions about that way back in the 1910s.

 

[Vendaval]

Get rid of the FPTP system and replaced it proportional representation or a similar system. Having early 20th century Progressives advocating PR could be a start.

 

[Deleted member 40957]

No. There were serious discussions about that way back in the 1910s.

Woodrow Wilson suggested it, actually. In the pre-revolutionary part of Reds! he actually gets it passed due to deadlock between Congress and the Presidency.

 

[StevenAttewell]

Electoral College isn't the issue.

The problem is the effects of FPTP in Congress and the rise of the presidency as an institution of power. If you get proportional voting, or any kind of multiple-member districts, then multiple parties have room to flourish.

Probably the smallest PoD to avoid this: prevent the abolition of ballot fusion in the late 19th century. If ballot fusion instead becomes universal across the United States, you can have influential third parties grow and prosper working in alliance with the major parties.

So, gaming this out: let's say the Populists do as well or better as they did in OTL in fusion with the Democratic Party. For whatever reason, courts overturn laws passed at the state level to make that illegal, or the Republicans just don't bother.

Down the road, the Socialist Party and Progressive Party do somewhat better than in OTL by fusioning with a major party and campaigning to "send a message to vote for X candidate on our ballot line." Let's also say that as a result, smaller parties put more effort into electing mayors, state reps, and Congressfolk, and actually build up a bench of electeds.

So maybe something like this happens:

• 1912 - T.R makes a serious pitch for Republicans who want to vote Republican to vote for him and their local Republican ticket where the locals are sympathetic to the Progressive cause, local Progressive chapters pitch local Socialists on fusion tickets on the local level, the Socialists fuse with the leftmost viable candidate in races where they can't win but can swing the vote, and both the Republicans and Democrats fuse with a smaller party where they can't win in order to deny their rivals another seat in Congress. Presidential race is pretty much as OTL, but the Congressional results are different, with Democrats winning a smaller majority, and Progressives winning significantly more than 9 seats.
• 1930-1936 - the reaction against Hooverism and a turn to the left in the electorate produces more and more hybrid Democrats. The 1936 election becomes a major turning point, as the CIO-backed American Labor Party polls a million votes in New York state alone, and provides the margin of victory for 100 Democrats in Congress. In addition to its king-maker status in New York, the ALP's mergers with the Democratic-Farm-Labor Party in Minnesota, the Wisconsin Progressive Party, and the Non-Partisan League in North Dakota make it a dominant force in those states, and a major player in Democratic politics in other heavily unionized states like Michigan, Indiana, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Montana, Ohio, Nevada, Wisconsin, Washington, California, and New Jersey.
• 1938-1948 - beginning with the failure of FDR's attempted purge of the Southern Democratic Party through a series of New Dealer-Democratic candidates in Kentucky, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Georgia, and Maryland, the Dixiecrat element in the southern Democratic Party urge southern whites to vote for FDR in 1940 and 1944 on a "State's Rights Democratic Party" ticket. This effort will in turn form the nucleus for Strom Thurmond's failed run for the presidency in 1948.
• 1950-1972 - haven't thought this for this period, but I'd imagine a decline in third party activity early on as the ALP begins to suffer from Cold War-induced internal conflict starting in 1948 when the party splits over Henry Wallace, and the Dixiecrats settling back into the party after Thurmond's failure. Then a gradual ramp-up, with lots of shenanigans in 1960 with "Republicans for Kennedy" and "Democrats for Nixon" urging fusion ticketing, and then a massive resurgence in 1968-80 following George Wallace's run for the president, with liberal and conservative wings of the Democratic Party trying to pull the party in their direction. I definitely see Carter being elected through an uneasy coalition of Progressive and New South fusion tickets, and I can't even begin to imagine the craziness in 1980.

 

[Daztur]

Have coherent party structures form earlier with more centralized means of selecting party candidates than primaries. That works wonders for having lots of random splinter groups in Korean politics despite (mostly) FPTP voting.

In the US it's just easier to take over your local party than to make a new party, if you make local parties under the thumb of the national party (and HAVE a meaningful national party infrastructure) then it gets harder to local insurgents to take over their local party and gives them more reason to make their own.

 

[Mr.J]

I could see a four party system, based on the politcal compass:

Republicans (government/economically right, social right)
OTL Conservative Republicans. Base in South and the rural areas of the coasts.

Populists (government/economically left, social right)
Think OTL Moral Majority as a political party, as well as some blue dog Democrats. Main base in the South and bits of the Result Belt.

Democrats (government/economically left, social left)
OTL Liberal Democrats. Base on the Coasts and big cities.

Libertarians (government/economically right, social left)
Like OTL Libertarians. Main base is in the West and parts of the coasts and rust belt.

I think this could definately happen if libertarians could shed their image among the chattering classes as being crackpots. Lots of yuppies who like gay marriage and low taxes...

 

[Daztur]

I think this could definately happen if libertarians could shed their image among the chattering classes as being crackpots. Lots of yuppies who like gay marriage and low taxes...

It would also help if the libertarians stopped being crackpots.