Why is the US limited to only two parties?

[rockyraccoon]

In all first world democracies, there are multiple(by that I mean more then 2) parties that have a seat. Many governments are formed through parties uniting with each other on certain issues although they won't agree on everything else.

Why then is the US limited to only two parties in their parliament? How come a third party is never able to get more then 1% of the house seats?

Are they some sort of retarded Dr. Jekyll/Mr.Hyde? Moar like Mr.Hyde/Mr.Hyde though amiright?

[Hur]

It's a conspiracy, and no that's not a joke response. It really is

[Rathynas]

Go read a history book. You really think these fools will know?

[wertyn]

Im angry about his ya ron paul woo ayeah

[rockyraccoon]

Go read a history book. You really think these fools will know?

no, i rather here the opinions of fellow forumfallers duking it out in their epic life-wasting flamewars.

[tallefred]

Because Americans suck. Stupid motherfuckers.

[Ungraylessness]

Everything the government does is wrong, once you accept that things will become clear.

[rockyraccoon]

Because Americans suck. Stupid motherfuckers.

that's not nice.

let's just take our anger out on canada. i heard their pretty lame.

[Methuselah]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_ States

This thread is fail. The OP should stick to discussing Cananada.

[BobbaFett]

Because otherwise you get retarded coalition parties trying to overthrow the government and divide your country when you are already facing an economic crisis.

[Naglfar87]

Heh I want George Bush to go to the houses of parliament for a day and see if he could stand up for his opinions, instead of going on about living in harmony with fish people.

[tallefred]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_ States

This thread is fail. The OP should stick to discussing Cananada.

The question was why 2 parties hold the vast majority of government positions. Not why we only have 2 parties, as mentioned in the OP, but why the other parties can't win anything.

[Ample]

In all first world democracies, there are multiple(by that I mean more then 2) parties that have a seat. Many governments are formed through parties uniting with each other on certain issues although they won't agree on everything else.

Why then is the US limited to only two parties in their parliament? How come a third party is never able to get more then 1% of the house seats?

Are they some sort of retarded Dr. Jekyll/Mr.Hyde? Moar like Mr.Hyde/Mr.Hyde though amiright?
this post fails hard.
Ever heard of a history book? or even google?
take a moment and look up "list of u.s. parties" before you make yourself sound even more retarded.
edit; methuselah beat me to it, and even provided a link.

[BobbaFett]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_ States

This thread is fail. The OP should stick to discussing Cananada.
Quoted for idiotic post, quoted for being an ass for no reason.

[wertyn]

ITT: ppl trying to make the op look stupid but ending up looking incredibly retarded themselves

[Everto]

The original system was built to hold only two.

[Brezick]

I voted -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marijuana_Party

[alfaroverall]

The original system was built to hold only two.
lol? The Founders would tell you that political parties were the thing they feared the absolute most. Those guys are rolling in their graves 24/7 now.

[Rokolith]

It's a conspiracy, and no that's not a joke response. It really is

^^ Although its becoming more and more apparent that they are the same two sides of a corrupt coin.

[Everto]

lol? The Founders would tell you that political parties were the thing they feared the absolute most. Those guys are rolling in their graves 24/7 now.

Only like, the first couple of founders.

after awhile it was almost necessary that they needed two parties so one wouldn't prevail in the world of Terrance.

[Kuri]

The main reason is money, most of the other parties do not rasie enough money to run ads and such, (so no one barly hears about them) and most are kept out of the conventions to focus on dem / rep parties.

[Eldaran]

America is full of idiots and sheep who like things the way they are. I've always thought we should have partyless candidates and have a NCAA tournament type of thing with 24 or so people to start and then narrow down to 1 using popular votes. I'm sick of the republican and democrat thing. We never get a good pick because all of them are snobbish rich dudes who were born into money. I want a goddamn normal person to run for president. Sheesh

[Everto]

America is full of idiots and sheep who like things the way they are. I've always thought we should have partyless candidates and have a NCAA tournament type of thing with 24 or so people to start and then narrow down to 1 using popular votes. I'm sick of the republican and democrat thing. We never get a good pick because all of them are snobbish rich dudes who were born into money. I want a goddamn normal person to run for president. Sheesh

Define "Normal"

[Eldaran]

Define "Normal"

Ron Paul

[Everto]

Ron Paul

that's not normal.
you speak of blasphemy!

[Methuselah]

In all first world democracies, there are multiple(by that I mean more then 2) parties that have a seat. Many governments are formed through parties uniting with each other on certain issues although they won't agree on everything else.

Why then is the US limited to only two parties in their parliament? How come a third party is never able to get more then 1% of the house seats?

Are they some sort of retarded Dr. Jekyll/Mr.Hyde? Moar like Mr.Hyde/Mr.Hyde though amiright?

Quoted for idiotic post, quoted for being an ass for no reason.

First off, we don't have a Parliament. We in the U.S. have a Congress consisting of the House and the Senate. There's a pretty huge difference between your Parliamentary system and our Congressional System.

Secondly, there are 100 Senators in the U.S Senate. Two for every state. Of these 100 Senators, two are currently Independents: Joe Lieberman, and Bernie Sanders. Math here in the States tells me that is 2% of the body.

Any time I need to know about hockey, Molsons, or donuts, I'll give you guys a shout, eh?. :sly:

[Rokolith]

First off, we don't have a Parliament. We in the U.S. have a Congress consisting of the House and the Senate. There's a pretty huge difference between your Parliamentary system and our Congressional System.

Secondly, there are 100 Senators in the U.S Senate. Two for every state. Of these 100 Senators, two are currently Independents: Joe Lieberman, and Bernie Sanders. Math here in the States tells me that is 2% of the body.

Any time I need to know about hockey, Molsons, or donuts, I'll give you guys a shout, eh?. :sly: Pwned and he can't say anything volatile back or he gets wtf moderator pwned, classy move!

[PirateGlen]

lol? The Founders would tell you that political parties were the thing they feared the absolute most. Those guys are rolling in their graves 24/7 now.

Yeah including the ones who participated in them. :rolleyes:

The reason it's two parties unlike other democracies is because it's winner take all majority/plurality elections as opposed to proportional representation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation).

[Methuselah]

Pwned and he can't say anything volatile back or he gets wtf moderator pwned, classy move!

Nah, I took my badge off and put the gun in the glove box. I've gone native on this one...

[autodcr]

Yeah including the ones who participated in them. :rolleyes:

The reason it's two parties unlike other democracies is because it's winner take all majority/plurality elections as opposed to proportional representation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation).

Actually, your statement isn't entirely true. Out of the fifty states, forty-eight of them are 'winner take all'. The other two, Maine and Nebraska, are proportional representation. It is actually the states right, not the federal governments, to decide their voting and polling method. Gotta' love that tenth amendment. :)

[PirateGlen]

Actually, your statement isn't entirely true. Out of the fifty states, forty-eight of them are 'winner take all'. The other two, Maine and Nebraska, are proportional representation. It is actually the states right, not the federal governments, to decide their voting and polling method. Gotta' love that tenth amendment. :)

Their populations are so small. Can't I just ignore them?

[autodcr]

Their populations are so small. Can't I just ignore them?

... ... ... Yes. :)

[rockyraccoon]

First off, we don't have a Parliament. We in the U.S. have a Congress consisting of the House and the Senate. There's a pretty huge difference between your Parliamentary system and our Congressional System.

Secondly, there are 100 Senators in the U.S Senate. Two for every state. Of these 100 Senators, two are currently Independents: Joe Lieberman, and Bernie Sanders. Math here in the States tells me that is 2% of the body.

Any time I need to know about hockey, Molsons, or donuts, I'll give you guys a shout, eh?. :sly:

first, i put parliament on purpose just to distinguish my canadianness. ftw though amirite? yeah obviously i know what congress is since every forumfaller complains about how bad they are.

second, I KNOW of the independants. what i said was a party can never be able to hold more then one percent. big difference between an independent and a party.

and please use the house/parliament as an example because the senate is just bureacratic retardness.

canada has a senate but their appointed 4 life by the queen so it can't be compared.

edit: sorry for late response, trying to get started on homework ftw.

[autodcr]

and please use the congress/parliament as an example because the senate is just bureacratic retardness.

Congress = House of Representatives + Senate.

Just saying...

[rockyraccoon]

Congress = House of Representatives + Senate.

Just saying...

kkthnx.

editing.

[PainlessDeath]

First off, we don't have a Parliament. We in the U.S. have a Congress consisting of the House and the Senate. There's a pretty huge difference between your Parliamentary system and our Congressional System.

Secondly, there are 100 Senators in the U.S Senate. Two for every state. Of these 100 Senators, two are currently Independents: Joe Lieberman, and Bernie Sanders. Math here in the States tells me that is 2% of the body.

Any time I need to know about hockey, Molsons, or donuts, I'll give you guys a shout, eh?. :sly:
Because there is no way I'm getting into beta and because you all are killing me with your ignorance........ :)

The beginning of the dominance of our two party system began with the Realignment of 1896. Back in the day, 80% of Americans voted in the general election (President), slightly less in all others. However, these votes were generally paid for, especially among the poor. Parties generally had a lock on voters and the rules governing how voting took place were very different than they are now e.g. no secret ballots...the guy paying you for your vote made sure you voted the right way.

Prior to 1896 there was an economic down turn and, simultaneously, a surge in the number of people who were more and more concerned with class issues. The Republicans took control of Congress and began implementing changes to how parties could be established and how parties could function in elections. These actions did and continue to make it very difficult to have a viable third party e.g. gerrymandering of districts by the party in power. The issue of class struggle died because no one chose to represent the lower class. You still see this effect today.

Adding to the above, America has a single member district voting system. Whoever gets 50 + 1 of the votes wins. There is no proportional representation, in that if 10% of the voters vote Libertarian, they lose. EVEN if, a third party candidate manages to get elected, unless they are consistently the tie breaker vote, they would have no effective power and must rely on logrolling and coalition building in order to get their respective agendas passed.

Last, but not the end :), both parties BY NECESSITY have to vie for the votes of the middle. Most Americans are moderates so most of the voters are in the middle. Neither party can afford to move very far away from the middle for fear that another party will move into the vacated spot. Also, neither party has to worry about parties that fall farther away from the middle. If the Green Party is more liberal than the Democratic party, the Democrats know that Green Party members aren't going to vote Republican because Green Party politics are closer to Dem. policies than Repub. policies.

In the rare case where there is a overwhelming movement towards a policy that is not covered by either parties political platform, one or both parties will try to adopt the new policy in order gain those votes as well as defeat the third party that might have brought that particular issue to the forefront.

It's a shame political science classes aren't mandatory, but then again politicians don't want everyone to know how the system really works.

Hope that helps a little bit.

[Methuselah]

Because there is no way I'm getting into beta and because you all are killing me with your ignorance........ :)

The beginning of the dominance of our two party system began with the Realignment of 1896. Back in the day, 80% of Americans voted in the general election (President), slightly less in all others. However, these votes were generally paid for, especially among the poor. Parties generally had a lock on voters and the rules governing how voting took place were very different than they are now e.g. no secret ballots...the guy paying you for your vote made sure you voted the right way.

Prior to 1896 there was an economic down turn and, simultaneously, a surge in the number of people who were more and more concerned with class issues. The Republicans took control of Congress and began implementing changes to how parties could be established and how parties could function in elections. These actions did and continue to make it very difficult to have a viable third party e.g. gerrymandering of districts by the party in power. The issue of class struggle died because no one chose to represent the lower class. You still see this effect today.

Adding to the above, America has a single member district voting system. Whoever gets 50 + 1 of the votes wins. There is no proportional representation, in that if 10% of the voters vote Libertarian, they lose. EVEN if, a third party candidate manages to get elected, unless they are consistently the tie breaker vote, they would have no effective power and must rely on logrolling and coalition building in order to get their respective agendas passed.

Last, but not the end :), both parties BY NECESSITY have to vie for the votes of the middle. Most Americans are moderates so most of the voters are in the middle. Neither party can afford to move very far away from the middle for fear that another party will move into the vacated spot. Also, neither party has to worry about parties that fall farther away from the middle. If the Green Party is more liberal than the Democratic party, the Democrats know that Green Party members aren't going to vote Republican because Green Party politics are closer to Dem. policies than Repub. policies.

In the rare case where there is a overwhelming movement towards a policy that is not covered by either parties political platform, one or both parties will try to adopt the new policy in order gain those votes as well as defeat the third party that might have brought that particular issue to the forefront.

It's a shame political science classes aren't mandatory, but then again politicians don't want everyone to know how the system really works.

Hope that helps a little bit.

Wow, I always thought the American two party system started with the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans in the early 1790's. Thank you for clearing that up.

[PainlessDeath]

Wow, I always thought the American two party system started with the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans in the early 1790's. Thank you for clearing that up.
I'm sure you are correct as to the number of parties in 1790, but it doesn't answer why we only have two parties now. Unless you are positing tradition.

[Kuruptix]

i always thought it was to give the sheeple a feeling of democracy

[Temet nosce]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_ States

This thread is fail. The OP should stick to discussing Cananada.

Canadia you mean. Might as well get the name right.

[Razel]

In all first world democracies, there are multiple(by that I mean more then 2) parties that have a seat. Many governments are formed through parties uniting with each other on certain issues although they won't agree on everything else.

Why then is the US limited to only two parties in their parliament? How come a third party is never able to get more then 1% of the house seats?

Are they some sort of retarded Dr. Jekyll/Mr.Hyde? Moar like Mr.Hyde/Mr.Hyde though amiright?

they need to do away with the parties altogether and stand with a spine, unfortunately none have one. The problem with two parties is cattle have one football team to cheer for and one to blame for all the problems.

[Uilamin]

well the main reason why you only see two major parties in the US is that for a president to get elected directly from the presidential vote they need to get over 50% of the votes. If there are three parties this is a lot more difficult than if there are two (where it is essentially gaurenteed unless enough poeple abstain or void their ballots).

[Tzacharu]

Now that the two party system has been in place for a couple hundred years, its hard to go back to a more free system with many more options. I just wish those that followed Washington had actually listened to his Farewell Address.

The Constitution also puts some limits to a more-than-two-party system. Since a candidate needs a majority to win office, it prevents candidates from dropping parties and making their own in order to get support. If they were to do that under the current law, it would hurt their party (Republican or Democratic) from winning the President's seat.

The media certainly doesn't help the situation either. They don't do anything to promote third party candidates. They don't cover every angle like they say they do, just the Reps and Dems. Third party candidates are rarely even admitted to debates because of lack of support. Well, why do you think that is? :bang:

[shadowy]

First off, we don't have a Parliament. We in the U.S. have a Congress consisting of the House and the Senate. There's a pretty huge difference between your Parliamentary system and our Congressional System.

Secondly, there are 100 Senators in the U.S Senate. Two for every state. Of these 100 Senators, two are currently Independents: Joe Lieberman, and Bernie Sanders. Math here in the States tells me that is 2% of the body.

Any time I need to know about hockey, Molsons, or donuts, I'll give you guys a shout, eh?. :sly:

My math tells me that some third party doesn't have 2% of the seats because those guys seem to be independent politicians according to wikipedia, might have mistunderstood something thou.

[Aikes]

Corporations fund both parties and typically the largest corporations fund candidates in both parties. So long as corporations such as pharmaceutical, tobacco, alcohol, oil, chemical, communications, power and any number of corporations, related or otherwise, are allowed to fund our political candidates then honest men with vision that really want to make a difference and help the people of the United States simply will not have a chance. How can they when the idiot in the corporate pocket has ten times the amount of advertising money the non-corporate poser does?

Just go watch the new documentaries American Drug War, Marijuana Nation, and Who Killed the Electric Car (this one isn't so new) and then tell me we the people have a chance in hell of any kind of fair or honest political situation.

Anyway, none of us play online games to delve into political reality. Now where is my John Smedley dart board......

[saltwaterteffy]

Corporations fund both parties and typically the largest corporations fund candidates in both parties. So long as corporations such as pharmaceutical, tobacco, alcohol, oil, chemical, communications, power and any number of corporations, related or otherwise, are allowed to fund our political candidates then honest men with vision that really want to make a difference and help the people of the United States simply will not have a chance. How can they when the idiot in the corporate pocket has ten times the amount of advertising money the non-corporate poser does?

Just go watch the new documentaries American Drug War, Marijuana Nation, and Who Killed the Electric Car (this one isn't so new) and then tell me we the people have a chance in hell of any kind of fair or honest political situation.

Anyway, none of us play online games to delve into political reality. Now where is my John Smedley dart board......

I'll let Tim robbins handle this one..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QjOI7bj5ks

mmm?

[MattMystrieo]

Because yanks aren't able to comprehend anything more than two.

[chodie4u]

Because yanks aren't able to comprehend anything more than two.

What's the point? It's not like tits come in threes.

[Pcheez]

What's the point? It's not like tits come in threes.

Ever been to Hiroshima ?

[PirateGlen]

Corporations fund both parties and typically the largest corporations fund candidates in both parties. So long as corporations such as pharmaceutical, tobacco, alcohol, oil, chemical, communications, power and any number of corporations, related or otherwise, are allowed to fund our political candidates then honest men with vision that really want to make a difference and help the people of the United States simply will not have a chance. How can they when the idiot in the corporate pocket has ten times the amount of advertising money the non-corporate poser does?

Just go watch the new documentaries American Drug War, Marijuana Nation, and Who Killed the Electric Car (this one isn't so new) and then tell me we the people have a chance in hell of any kind of fair or honest political situation.

Anyway, none of us play online games to delve into political reality. Now where is my John Smedley dart board......

What do you have against freedom of speech?

[hardboiled]

In all first world democracies, there are multiple(by that I mean more then 2) parties that have a seat. Many governments are formed through parties uniting with each other on certain issues although they won't agree on everything else.

Why then is the US limited to only two parties in their parliament? How come a third party is never able to get more then 1% of the house seats?

Are they some sort of retarded Dr. Jekyll/Mr.Hyde? Moar like Mr.Hyde/Mr.Hyde though amiright?

The US is still the best democracy around, and it's 2 parties are much more diverse than the 5 parties here in Finland or anywhere else in Europe.

[crispyfried]

party when the sun is up , party when it's not ..... 2 parties how many more do you need?

[Grizzler]

Look at Belgium! We fail the hardest! :lmao:


Seriously, our country's politic system is the worst.. :o

[Someone]

party when the sun is up , party when it's not ..... 2 parties how many more do you need?

What about the twilight moments? This isn't the equator where the sun sets or rises in less than a minute. I don't want the party getting slow so I demand atleast 4 parties!

[Grizzler]

What about the twilight moments? This isn't the equator where the sun sets or rises in less than a minute. I don't want the party getting slow so I demand atleast 4 parties!

What about festivals? Do they get locked out like that? :(

[Synika]

The US is still the best democracy around, and it's 2 parties are much more diverse than the 5 parties here in Finland or anywhere else in Europe.

Lulz



Do American political parties have a limit they can spend on thier election campaign? as there is a limit here to keep it fair for all political parties.

If you don't that would certainly contribute to your 2 party dominated system.

[jonyak]

The US is still the best democracy around, and it's 2 parties are much more diverse than the 5 parties here in Finland or anywhere else in Europe.

just saying that the us is the best democracy around does not make it true...

I dunno how you could be so brainwashed as to even think that.

its possibly the worst democracy in the world.

[Kietharr]

In all first world democracies, there are multiple(by that I mean more then 2) parties that have a seat. Many governments are formed through parties uniting with each other on certain issues although they won't agree on everything else.

Why then is the US limited to only two parties in their parliament? How come a third party is never able to get more then 1% of the house seats?

Are they some sort of retarded Dr. Jekyll/Mr.Hyde? Moar like Mr.Hyde/Mr.Hyde though amiright?

The one thing the parties will work together on is keeping third parties and independents out of office. Plus the majority of Americans are too dumb to understand more than two parties and believe that voting third party is throwing a vote away. Naturally, if everyone believes that the third parties never get elected.