Should America allow a multi-party system?

Question

Currently it’s structured two-party…not saying third parties are prohibited. But elections, and frankly us voters, like to follow party lines of red and blue. And third parties have more hoops.

Look at all the parties in France. They’re leaders are elected with 30% of the vote at best.

Should America allow a multi-party system?

It is funny that when we assist other countries with constitutions and governments our State officials usually recommend a Parliament like above. Not a two-state republic. I guess cuz baby countries have so many interests who aren’t aligned yet.

nightdrot · Accepted Answer

The question is the fallacy of the false alternative. In fact, America does allow as many parties as the public desires. The reason why it is basically a two party system is not legal but rather cultural, sociological and historical.

In fact, American parties are not ideological parties as you tend to see in Europe. Rather they are lose knit coalitions of regional, religious, ethnic, racial, income and other groups that have come together in part by common interests and in part by historical accident.

In the case of the GOP, it is a coalition made up of classical liberals - which Americans call conservatives, libertarians, small and medium sized business, religious and social traditionalists, lower middle and upper middle income earners, farmers, rural and exurban populations, older voters, the South, the Great Plains, the Rocky Mountain West and the state of Alaska, to name the most prominent groups.

On the Democratic side you get, ethnic and religious minorities, middle and high income wage earners, big business and entertainment industries, urban and inner suburban votes, radical liberals - which Americans call liberals. (Note, the term "radical" here does not mean as Americans use it, i. e. "extremist," but rather as the ancient Greeks used the term, meaning "to the root of.") The northeast, the mid-Atlantic, the Pacific coast and the state of Hawaii.

This is how you get a Republican Party that runs from Ted Cruz at one end to Susan Collins at the other. This is how you get a Democratic Party that runs from Joe Manchin at one end to Elizabeth Warren at the other. Quite simply, party identification is not about ideological identity.

Throw in the "first past the post/winner take all" electoral system that rewards the party with the broadest tent. The result is two broad based parties that tend to absorb the popular ideas of smaller parties before those smaller parties get too much of a following. Quite simply, there is no need to vote libertarian, for example, when libertarian ideas tend to get absorbed into the Republicans.

Indeed, that is why many libertarians - see also Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky as Exhibit A - tend to run under the GOP banner. The party can accommodate those ideas and in the process will sweep in other less ideological voters - not to mention campaign volunteers, etc. This broadens the appeal of a narrower ideological viewpoint and facilitates a better chance of winning.

Of course, this hurts smaller and newer parties. Their ideas, as noted, get absorbed and expressed before the new party really gets off the ground. Such parties then tend to operate on the fringe, pulling in only the very most ideological voters.

In that connection, the big parties tend toward - generally but not always, depending upon the mood of the times - moderation. The various factions within a party must compromise with one another, thereby avoiding extremes.

As to voter turnout. That is paradoxically a sign of civic health. Most Americans do not, in normal circumstances, see politics as playing that big a part in their lives. So they tend to ignore it and not vote.

Indeed, voter turnout tends to rise in bad economic times and wartime, and decline in periods of relative peace, prosperity and stability. This is true not only in the United States.

Not for nothing did voter turnouts in Germany rise to the 80% range in the early 1930s when Hitler came to power. For people generally, the stakes of politics became life or death and so they went to the polls in droves. To be sure, there is generally higher voter turnout in Europe. However, that is because they have more homogeneous populations and government tends to play a bigger role in national life than it does in the United States. (As for example in Europe's much more extensive welfare states.)

In a nutshell, the relatively smaller role of government and the broad non-ideological base of the two parties means that the GOP and the Democratic party tend to monopolize national life. Indeed, the last time a small party - then the Republicans - shot to major status it was because there was a huge existential debate over slavery and impending civil war. Not sure we want to repeat all that.

goaded · Accepted Answer

The UK generally has had 3 competitive parties, which works moderately well because the third party takes votes away from whichever major party is the most extreme. Sometimes, they even get some power, although last time that happened, they got played by their more experienced coalition partners and got the blame for everything that went wrong.

It's a useful safety valve, as long as the system doesn't elect a president.

Instant runoff voting for president would be a good approach for the US, I think. Maybe with the VP being the candidate in second place (the one who would have won if the winner hadn't been in the running).

Elliegirl · Accepted Answer

We have a multi party system. There’s just almost always been only two major parties. I think there’s still only one senator that’s registered independent, Lieberman. And it’s been since around the Civil War since there were more than two major parties, democrats, republicans, and the southern democrats known as “Dixiecrats” who didn’t side with the rest of the Democratic Party. If you consider the CSA still part of the country during secession and the Civil War, I guess there were four then.

Kelley1 · Accepted Answer

It is a one party system and will remain that way because the party willl not allow any real competition.

RavVid · Answer

Not a US cit.

A problem with two dominant parties is you can be effectively disenfranchised by bipartisan policy. A majority of voters might be opposed to a policy that both majors support. However one policy is never the only issue and people have to vote on a whole range of policies. The dominant position of the two majors forces you to vote for one of them if you want your vote to count for anything.

An example from my country (Australia). Both major dominant parties had a bipartisan policy to get rid of the manufacturing sector which put a lot of people out of work and onto the dole. If that bipartisan policy was put to a vote on it's own it would be voted down. Better to have people going to work instead of paying them unemployment benefits to play games all day.

Yes domestically manufactured goods cost more so there is an effective tax to support manufacturing but against that there is the cost of the dole and societal cost of people who have time to think and stink about being locked into a bare low income existence and maybe cut loose in protest at times.

At elections the media emphasizes the policy differences between the major parties. But the most significant policies can be bipartisan ones that don't serve our respective countries well and they never get mentioned and are invisible.

Those of us who live in two dominant party systems need to realize bipartisan policies are a tyranny. Just saying.

Anonymous · Answer

The 2 party system functions to require a majority to compromise to win presidential elections, thereby limiting extremism. As much as both sides try to portray the other as extreme in reality both are quite moderate in comparison to the diversity of the populations from which they come as a whole.

In this way having only 2 parities build on compromise to pull everyone together to win are actually very unifying even if they seem stiflingly inflexible in that compromise.

It really isn't the parties that are stiflingly but the ever expanding power of the State the parties govern. No matter what party rules that goverment would be just as stiflingly to nearly all of the population with the same power wielded in probably an even more disagreeable way having not going thou such compromise.

The only reason modern state officials general discourage new democracies from utilizing such a system is because they are complicated and unwieldy. Which the same state officials being politicians don't like.
As it gets in the way of anyone having the absolute power they think is necessary to "get things done" given their opposite is soo large and powerful.

Flatmanlewis · Answer

I have always thought so. I’m one of the many, many, Americans who do not fit neatly into either political party. I have values that span the two parties meaning I often have to select which issue is most important to me, or which two or three outweighs the other two or three.

I’m all about low taxes and avoiding wars. I want to own my firearm of choice. I like small government. Yet, I support strict environmental protections, background checks for gun purchases, and well. funded schools. The list goes on but the point is I’d like to see a party which wasn’t just ideologically opposed to the other as it’s whole basis.

RingOfFire · Answer

1. America already "allows" a multiparty system. It's up to the electorate to decide if they want it an so far they don't.

2. You really only need two parties because there is really only one issue with two sides to it: Do you want individuals to control their own destiny or have your destiny determined some government filled with politicians and bureaucrats. Every issue boils down to that. If you believe in liberty it's one party (Republicans) and if you believe in big government tyranny it's the other (Democrats). Everything else is just an attempt to be a mix of both. But you can't mix them because they are incompatible. And that's why third parties are useless and always fail.

standardguy · Answer

The problem is not that only two parties are allowed in the USA, but that the electoral system results in two major parties. Because if there are 3 or more parties, the wrong political camp could win. Suppose there are 60% right-wing voters and 40% left-wing voters in a constituency. then with 2 parties the right-wing party would win. But if there are 2 right-wing parties that each receive 30% approval, the left-wing party would win with 40 versus 30 and 30. This would mean that the voters' will would not lead to victory. If there are 3 or more parties, proportional representation would have to be used (as in Germany, for example) or an election with two rounds of voting, with a runoff of the two most successful candidates in the first round (as in France).

Drewtate · Answer

It all comes down to choice

rgii55447 · Answer

It'd definitely help to reduce extremism on either given side, people won't have to be forced to choose one side or another and get pulled in even deeper because of it.

Also, you no longer have a 50/50 chance of winning an election, so expectations would be somewhat lowered, so instead of an election being EVERYTHING, it could rather be something that you can work with.

dreamstar72 · Answer

No we should do away completely with the party system. Have a debate of like twenty to thirty people, divide the country up, like east west. The four top people in that debate runs for the president and vice president. The top one gets to be the president and the runner up gets the vice president. Now we have no more hate between the parties people would actually vote for the person who would do the best job and not because they feel obligated to

MysticDevice · Answer

It is a multi party system but no one cares about the other ones. They really should start though. Especially since the Democratic party has become literally the Traveling Blundering Circus. People need to realize you don't actually have to vote for Democrats OR Republicans. There are other options.

SolitarySolace · Answer

A two party system is bad enough were always at war with the other. Even when one party starts to align with the other another varient of the party goes the opposite way and it just continues on again. Whereas a multiparty system would be like a World War with some parties joining with others to take out rival parties. There's no good answer.

CozyCoffin · Answer

They have had plenty of chances and even one of the best Presidents we ever had, Theodore Roosevelt wasn't elected to a third term under his Bull Moose party. We're too ingrained in the two parties and have alternatives, but a high majority stick to them.

OtterMan68 · Answer

Yes! Right now we have a system were party loyalty is put ahead of what's best for the country, and one party can block or push through legislation. If no one party had 51% of a house of congress, they would HAVE to form coalitions to get things done.
The key is making sure that the four biggest parties in the US are automatically in all Presidential, US Senate, and congress debates.

exitseven · Answer

I think that two major parties is a better system. I look at Great Britain and it seems like the government is in chaos and nothing gets done. Well I guess maybe we should give multi party a try.

Carly2005 · Answer

Yes instead just having choice between the bloods and the crips.

normalice · Answer

It already had a multiparty system. But it is true it would be more robust if we adopted ranked choice voting,

ArrowheadSW · Answer

I would like to see a "moderate" type of party rise to a level of significance.

Jamie05rhs · Answer

The two party system is THE MAIN REASON for the majority of our problems today! Most of these issues would have been solved DECADES ago were it not for the partisan gridlock.

jshm2 · Answer

Would require America to be split up like the Soviet union.

Jersey2 · Answer

I think it will split into more parties as it has in the distant past. We will see a green party, a socialist party, a left of center and right of center party and some fringe groups.

McLlovin · Answer

We already have many party’s already they are just super unpopular to the point you dont think they even exist

strateguy632 · Answer

clearly you never voted in u. s. the ballot has MORE THAN TWO.

handsomelad70 · Answer

Yes, but the REPIGLIKKKLANS and the DUMBOCRATS are rich people's parties, so they'll fight third parties to the death.

Sevenpointfive · Answer

yes! i'm sick of the system we have. we all are

KrakenAttackin · Answer

We have plenty of "third" patties. The issue is finding. The current two parties wound have to vote to fund and enable a third party... which ain't likely.

Anonymous · Answer

No. Every state should be their own country.

Alex-Snow · Answer

Yes there should be a party that is moderate... let the left and the right do their own thing

robocop666 · Answer

No you have a fixed system. With immigration it will soon be a one party system. Yet you preach democracy worldwide.

Anonymous · Answer

Newsflash: America DOES allow a multi-party system!

ChefPapiChulo · Answer

American democracy is fake. It's an oligarchy.

Anonymous · Answer

The government is the cult lead for Society. As long as folks vote and watch the news, the worlds major issues will remain

Anonymous · Answer

European parliaments may have multiple parties but they always break down into two opposing coalitions on election day

BoopBoopBeep · Answer

Did we get a second party? Bully that!

msc545 · Answer

Two party would be great!

whistlingwh0res · Answer

why don't you just fuck away

benbirüçgenim · Answer

Gay america

Should America allow a multi-party system?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

Should America allow a multi-party system?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

We're glad to see you liked this post.