sikitu said:
Bruning. My apologies. I hates names and dates, so I remembered that there was a Bru-something who shut down the government on purpose from 1930-32.
WI: Viable Third Party
- Thread starter Beck Reilly
- Start date
Bruning. My apologies. I hates names and dates, so I remembered that there was a Bru-something who shut down the government on purpose from 1930-32.
Ace Venom said:
Proportional Representation. There is no other way. And even here parties form coalitions for the Presidency.
A US that has strong regional parties (like Quebec has) will have those parties work together, too. You'll see something like OTL Democrats and Dixiecrats form a presidential coalition.
As a counterpoint - a strongish 3rd party would in time become even more powerful than the two larger ones.
Why?
It will always hold the balance of power. Grant concessions or it goes and plays ball with the other. The result is either disproportionate power for a minority party or a series of weak governments and constant elections.
That isn't to say a 2 party system is better one,just that like most forms of democracy it is a bad one but not necessarily worse than others.
Speaking as an outisder in the US election, I'm not so sure that 'Party' means quite as much in the USA as it might in Europe. It seems to me that individual Senators and Representatives can plough their own furrow to a much larger extent than, say, a Labour or Conservative MP. Does Congress have a system akin to Parliament's 'whipping' system whereby MPs have to vote a party-line?
Or will all Democrats or Republicans campaign on the same party manifesto in the election ?
Why?
It will always hold the balance of power. Grant concessions or it goes and plays ball with the other. The result is either disproportionate power for a minority party or a series of weak governments and constant elections.
That isn't to say a 2 party system is better one,just that like most forms of democracy it is a bad one but not necessarily worse than others.
Speaking as an outisder in the US election, I'm not so sure that 'Party' means quite as much in the USA as it might in Europe. It seems to me that individual Senators and Representatives can plough their own furrow to a much larger extent than, say, a Labour or Conservative MP. Does Congress have a system akin to Parliament's 'whipping' system whereby MPs have to vote a party-line?
Or will all Democrats or Republicans campaign on the same party manifesto in the election ?
Peter Cowan said:
In actual measures of party-strength (the Banzhaf and Shapley indices from game theory) a "third party" is not that great, really, certainly not greater than the major ones, and shows power is distributed more proportionally than first-past-the-post (where a party elected by 40% of the vote gets 100% of the power.) An alternative to the "squeaky-wheel" party would have the mainline parties themselves form a "purple coalition" to keep the extremists out. Within the Purple Coalition itself something similar to the American Republicrat "bipartisanship" would exist.
Congressional discipline has increased markedly since Newt Gingrich and Tom "the Hammer" DeLay took over in '94; it is somewhere in the 80% range, almost as strong as your "rubber-stamp" Parliament.
Sadly, elections in the US (and Canada, too) are driven by personalities and not the issues. The closest thing to a manifesto, Newt's "Contract with America" was not a major factor in the '94 elections.
Last edited:
How's this for a POD?
If Perot managed to throw the election into the House of Representatives (perhaps he gets a few states rather than 20% of the vote spread evenly and thus no electoral votes), he might win b/c the people at the time were sick of "busines as usual."
As the first victorious 3rd Party candidate in decades, he might be able to give the Reform Party some sticking power. Heck, he might even cause one party to break up and assimilate some of it into the Reform.
However, if he's too powerful, Reform might end up one of two parties...the bits of the other two that don't join Reform merge to form a rival party.
If Perot managed to throw the election into the House of Representatives (perhaps he gets a few states rather than 20% of the vote spread evenly and thus no electoral votes), he might win b/c the people at the time were sick of "busines as usual."
As the first victorious 3rd Party candidate in decades, he might be able to give the Reform Party some sticking power. Heck, he might even cause one party to break up and assimilate some of it into the Reform.
However, if he's too powerful, Reform might end up one of two parties...the bits of the other two that don't join Reform merge to form a rival party.
Matt Quinn said:
The (alleged) Reform Party has no members whatsoever in Congress. There is no way he would have been chosen by this method.
Everyone is running away from Beck's theory of a Liberal/Conservative/Dixiecrat split producing 3 parties for an extended period.
It recognizes that the only way to get 3 parties for an extended period is to have sharp regional differention. Perhaps his scenerio could've happened but I see the Liberal faction being the strongest--with union help it would be competitive in important states like Illiinois. The Liberals would have a hard time mustering a majority in the Senate though so the result could be well be extended grodlock.
Tom,
Perhaps if there's a strong swell of support for Perot in the aftermath of it getting into the House, the various Repubs and Dems (the dissidents who'll get absorbed shortly thereafter, plus some others) might vote according to their constituents' wishes.
Or not, and then face hell next election. Perot in that situation could easily be a martyr and go out campaigning as such to get Reform folks elected to Congress.
Perhaps if there's a strong swell of support for Perot in the aftermath of it getting into the House, the various Repubs and Dems (the dissidents who'll get absorbed shortly thereafter, plus some others) might vote according to their constituents' wishes.
Or not, and then face hell next election. Perot in that situation could easily be a martyr and go out campaigning as such to get Reform folks elected to Congress.
Tom_B said:
In our winner-takes-all system, any "third party" powerful enough to deny a majority will form a coalition, and then merge with one of the parties, rather like the Liberal-National coalition in Australia. In your scenario, the Dixiecrats and Conservatives form a natural coalition. If the "third party" can't swing the presidency, then it will fade away...