3 ms·
A viable multiple party system is likely ideal but would need reformists in charge to bring it about. Historically in the US, parties undergo radical change: F
by TomMckenny 8y ago
A viable multiple party system is likely ideal but would need reformists in charge to bring it about.
Historically in the US, parties undergo radical change: FDR's party is very different from Wilson and even more so than Andrew Johnson; Harding's is very different than Lincoln's. We are in what is called the 6th party system if I'm not mistaken.
So practically speaking it could be that the primaries are more important than the actual elections.
- totalZero 8y agoFirst past the post systems generally converge to a two party equilibrium. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
- tialaramex 8y agoThis is true, but it's orthogonal to the changes in parties themselves. Sometimes a party goes away in name but continues in spirit, at other times an existing name is retained but the core philosophy of the party changes enormously. For example the ordinary term for members of the Conservative and Unionist Party in England is "Tories" but legally Tories are a different and much older political party. The allegiances and policies shifted, those who opposed Whiggs in parliament hundreds of years ago and those today arguing about how exactly to leave the EU have almost nothing in common beyond being vaguely "centre-right".