4 ms·
With two parties divided along ideological left-right lines, it’s expected that a majority won’t be switching side too often in their lifetime. The opposite wou
by dasudasu 6y ago
With two parties divided along ideological left-right lines, it’s expected that a majority won’t be switching side too often in their lifetime. The opposite would be ideologically weak parties doing a form of clientelism that would change according to the trends of the day.
- munk-a 6y agoComparing the US system with parliamentary governments - I reject the assumption that the two parties are clearly divided along left-right lines. People all have a pretty wide diversity of opinions there are plenty of people I know that are both pro-life and pro-medicare for all - they don't have a home in the US political system and thus have to settle for one party of the other. The US's two-party entrenchment forces this false appearance of an us vs. them political battle. It's true that in the US you can only legitimately vote for either D or R in races and that this further entrenches the two parties - but issue voters should be flowing pretty freely between the two parties as their individual focuses shift.
- srtjstjsj 6y ago> The opposite would be ideologically weak parties doing a form of clientelism that would change according to the trends of the day. Like the Southern Strategy, the Blue Dog Democrats, Tea Party, and Donald Trump (party-switcher). Look at the radical positions calling themselves "conservative" today, getting more extreme since the 1980s when religous extremists stated taking over the Republican Party. One-third of US voters are Independent not registered to a party. The US electoral system forces to parties, but those parties change and are sometimes replaced.