3 ms·

The issue in the USA isn't necessarily that politicians organize themselves into different groups/parties, but that there is essentially no choice. The electio

The issue in the USA isn't necessarily that politicians organize themselves into different groups/parties, but that there is essentially no choice. The election system in the USA is mostly organized in district/state sort of way, where the winner of the state elections gets all the votes. This makes it very hard for more then two parties to participate in the election. Since there is no choice, there is very little incentive to listen to the electorate (always vote for the lesser evil). I live in a country with no district system (and thus multiple parties). While it isn't even close to perfect, at least I can vote for people I mostly agree with.

LargeWu 16y ago
President is the only office where the votes are cast by who wins the entire state. It's called the Electoral College, and it's constitutionally required. However, it's not constitutionally mandated that the winner of the state gets all that state's votes. A few (Maine and Nebraska) cast their votes based on who wins the congressional districts. Otherwise, there are in fact more than 2 parties, they just dont' get as much support, and the two major parties generally like to keep it that way. Occasionally though you will see minor party candidates or independent candidates win major offices.
- logophobia 16y ago
  Note that I said district/state. Your senate has 2 seats for each state and the house has a seat for each district. This still means that there is no realistic way for a third party to get any sort of real power. Because the votes are arbitrarily divided among districts, only parties that have significant majorities have a chance of winning. Any third party in the USA has very little chance of winning any seat. Even if they have 10% support among the electorate it is unlikely that they'll get much seats. The nice thing about a system without districts is that smaller parties get power approximately in proportion to the votes they get. The coalitions you get in these systems are messy but more fair. It's a bit unrealistic to forbid people from forming political parties on these somewhat vague assertions. Reforming the election system to be more fair to smaller parties should have a bigger effect I think.

LargeWu 16y ago

President is the only office where the votes are cast by who wins the entire state. It's called the Electoral College, and it's constitutionally required. However, it's not constitutionally mandated that the winner of the state gets all that state's votes. A few (Maine and Nebraska) cast their votes based on who wins the congressional districts. Otherwise, there are in fact more than 2 parties, they just dont' get as much support, and the two major parties generally like to keep it that way. Occasionally though you will see minor party candidates or independent candidates win major offices.

logophobia 16y ago
Note that I said district/state. Your senate has 2 seats for each state and the house has a seat for each district. This still means that there is no realistic way for a third party to get any sort of real power. Because the votes are arbitrarily divided among districts, only parties that have significant majorities have a chance of winning. Any third party in the USA has very little chance of winning any seat. Even if they have 10% support among the electorate it is unlikely that they'll get much seats. The nice thing about a system without districts is that smaller parties get power approximately in proportion to the votes they get. The coalitions you get in these systems are messy but more fair. It's a bit unrealistic to forbid people from forming political parties on these somewhat vague assertions. Reforming the election system to be more fair to smaller parties should have a bigger effect I think.