6 ms·
The primary attribute of American politics that encourages a two party system is what’s known as “first past the post” elections. America’s two main parties ha
by md_ 6y ago
The primary attribute of American politics that encourages a two party system is what’s known as “first past the post” elections.
America’s two main parties have changed over the years (remember the Whigs?), so the existence of a two-party system cannot be attributed purely to control exerted by the current two parties.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law.
- bobthepanda 6y agoAnother, often overlooked part, is that competing in an American election requires very expensive media and outreach campaigns. Clinton spent $1.2B in 2016 and Trump spent $680B. These are formidable sums for non-establishment parties. Bernie spent $230M in a primary. To give a rough comparison, the UK limits spending per constituency, so the upper limit a party is allowed to spend in the UK is 19.5 GBP.
- chrisseaton 6y ago> Trump spent $680B I think this is not true. > the upper limit a party is allowed to spend in the UK is 19.5 GBP I'm pretty sure they spend more than that, as well.
- bobthepanda 6y agothe B is a typo, should be M. > I'm pretty sure they spend more than that, as well. As per the BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50170067 https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50170067 > In the 2017 general election, 75 parties and 18 campaign groups reported spending more than £41.6m between them. The Conservatives spent most at £18.6m. It fielded 638 candidates, winning in 317 constituencies. Labour came in at £11m and the Liberal Democrats at £6.8m.
- chrisseaton 6y ago> As per the BBC The BBC figures are a million times larger than yours if you meant it as a total, and a hundred times smaller than yours if you meant it as per-capita.
- bobthepanda 6y agoOr instead of being purposely obtuse, realizing the same exact mistake (leaving off an M) happened here as well. BBC, same article: > Political parties' spend is also capped at £30,000 for each constituency that it contests in a general election. So if a party stood a candidate in each of the 650 UK constituencies, its maximum spend would total £19.5m.
- amadeuspagel 6y ago> Trump spent $680B. Surely you mean $680M?
- bobthepanda 6y agomy bad, before the morning coffee and now it's too late to edit the comment.
- Stupulous 6y ago> Clinton spent $1.2B in 2016 and Trump spent $680B. These are formidable sums for non-establishment parties. I was going to write a comment about how shocked I was that Trump outspending Clinton by a factor of 500 didn't see any media coverage, but it looks like that's supposed to be 680M.
- bobthepanda 6y agomy bad, before the morning coffee and now it's too late to edit the comment.
- Stupulous 6y agoNo worries, just a typo, wouldn't have mentioned it if I saw I wasn't the first to do so.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- nickik 6y ago> Clinton spent $1.2B in 2016 and Trump spent $680B. I'm not an expert but those numbers sound like total crap.
- wolco 6y agoFirst past the post doesn't explain Canada's four main parties. There is something preventing additional parties in America
- CountSessine 6y agoYes - it’s the fact that the race for the presidency is a winner-takes-all game. When Clinton lost, she didn’t get a diminished, minority, but still proportional say in the running of the government - she was completely out and Trump got everything. The US system wasn’t engineered with the possibility of coalitions and compromise governments in mind (at least not in the Executive).
- kgwgk 6y agoThere are other countries, like France, where presidential elections have (obviously) a single winner which have nevertheless multiple parties. If the US president was elected by the Congress would that end bipartidism? I don’t know.
- flingo 6y agoI thought the original setup where the vice president was whoever got the second most votes was going for that.
- md_ 6y agoEvery Canadian government but for one has been from one of the two main parties.
- chrisseaton 6y agoOther countries with first-past-the-post have many parties. So FPTP does not cause two-parties - that's clearly nonsense.
- gallegojaime 6y agoMathematically it makes sense for a two-party system to emerge, after the smaller parties are weeded out after some years of running unsuccessfully. Most people will accept compromise of their ideals to "fight some greater evil".
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- oehtXRwMkIs 6y agoThe counterexample of other countries is not sufficient to rule it out as a causal factor, that's just faulty logic.
- Redoubts 6y ago> Other countries with first-past-the-post have many parties Which ones do you have in mind? The one's I'm thinking of have two main parties, and then strictly regional parties which displace them entirely in their regions. > So FPTP does not cause two-parties - that's clearly nonsense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
- chrisseaton 6y agoFor example the UK. A few elections ago a minor but national party was in government.
- cyphar 6y agoThe UK has two major parties. The fact that the LibDems were in a coalition government once due to a hung parliament (and the last hung parliament was in 1974) isn't really evidence that the UK has more than two major parties. A major party actually has a chance to have a plurality. I also hasten to point out that the LibDems currently have 11 seats (the SNP has four times as many). Many European countries with non-FPTP systems have coalition governments all the time and there really are several viable major parties. To be fair, preferential voting isn't a panacea (and arguably should be paired with multiple-representative electorates). Here in Australia we have instant run-off voting and there are still two major parties with even less crossbenchers than the UK parliament -- though our Senate does have a fair few independent and third-party candidates, likely because Senate seats aren't winner-takes-all (like electorate seats are for the House of Representatives). I think voter education is also partially to blame -- many Australians seem to not be aware of how preferential voting works.