5 ms·

The USA is a two-party state because of the voting system. If people could confidently vote for another party there wouldn't be just two parties. It's even ref

The USA is a two-party state because of the voting system. If people could confidently vote for another party there wouldn't be just two parties. It's even reflected in the language, like how people task about being "bi-partizan" instead of "non-partizan".

smitty1e 5y ago
> The USA is a two-party state because of the voting system. If people could confidently vote for another party there wouldn't be just two parties. There are plenty of other parties, for example: Libertarian, Green, and Constitution. In practice, these minor parties (could be) funded by the opposite end of the spectrum to weaken the other side (just a hunch). But that gets at one possibility of why these minor parties never do better than, say Ross Perot (who got no electoral votes, but sunk Bush41 in 1992): scale. It takes a whale of a party to carry a pond the size of the US. And really, the remaining two nominal parties seem wings of a deeper, stateful organization putting on a show every couple of years. If there is interest in altering the equation, I would suggest https://conventionofstates.com/ https://conventionofstates.com/
- cryptgno 5y ago
  Plurality voting systems lacking runoff elections lead to two-party states. Maurice Duverger pointed this out in 1964. The Convention of States is a campaign by the Tea Party movement to form an Article V convention, but they are more likely to present a balanced budget amendment, not electoral reform. Key people involved like Jim DeMint have also advocated for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage—a pretty silly idea if you ask me.
  - smitty1e 5y ago
    The 16th and 17th Amendments, plus the Federal Reserve Act, all in 1913, along with the capping of the House of Representatives at 435 members in 1910, have driven the growth of the Administrative State. And the debt. So now there is a quasi-aristocracy running plays and putting on these electoral shows every couple of years. Calls for substantial reform. Technical people understand the need for clean architecture and political systems. Humans are not code, but our political- and tax systems are a Byzantine train wreck. On a good day. But go ahead and worry about DeMint's opinions, boss.
    - cryptgno 5y ago
      I agree that our political system is a train wreck, but I don't see why the political positions of the people you're suggesting amend the Constitution wouldn't be relevant.
      - smitty1e 5y ago
        Ah, so. I submit that perhaps the communication challenge may be rooted in the modern insistence in making ansolutely everything political. A Federalist construct would seek to assign appropriate tasking to each level of government, and have DC manage international and inter-State concerns. Arguably, a single, monolithic state try to manage every personal and local concern leads to gridlock, Q.E.D.
erentz 5y ago
> If people could confidently vote for another party there wouldn't be just two parties. If multimember districts are used with RCV yes. If not it tends to maintain a duopoly. Australia’s Senate uses RCV like voting with multimember districts and has more diversity than its House which uses single member districts. That said there is some benefit to using RCV even with single member districts as in theory it tends to moderate the candidates a bit as they want to appeal to more people. That said I think it’s a serious missed opportunity to press RCV without multimember districts.
- Taniwha 5y ago
  I think that RCV is at best a hack, a compromise for people who don't want to get too far from FPP. IMHO if you are electing individual people (a mayor, a US president, a city council, a US Senator) then STV is more equitable (it is pretty close to RCV if you are electing a single person). But if you are electing parties (like the US House) then MMP is a fairer solution
  - ant6n 5y ago
    Ranked ballots in single member districts are really a hack on electoral reform movements. It creates the appearance of improving the system while only solving one of many problems. The hack worked in Canada and GB, where it was used to divide, confuse and ultimately scuttle the electoral reform process.
  - gwright 5y ago
    > But if you are electing parties (like the US House) I'm not sure why you are phrasing it this way. Voters don't pick a party for their House representative, they pick a candidate. Each House district election is independent of all the others.
    - CameronNemo 5y ago
      Voters pick a candidate knowing that the candidate will have to play within a two party legislature. Third party legislators are shunned. Their bills get no traction, and they get no committee assignments. If they are seriously divergent, the House could easily have them removed.
thaumasiotes 5y ago
> The USA is a two-party state because of the voting system. There's much more to it than that. The two-party system is codified into many laws. A lot of effort goes into maintaining it; the voting system isn't up to that job.
- JohnWhigham 5y ago
  That's just a circular argument though. It's codified because the voting system has historically only allowed for two parties to flourish.

smitty1e 5y ago

> The USA is a two-party state because of the voting system. If people could confidently vote for another party there wouldn't be just two parties. There are plenty of other parties, for example: Libertarian, Green, and Constitution. In practice, these minor parties (could be) funded by the opposite end of the spectrum to weaken the other side (just a hunch). But that gets at one possibility of why these minor parties never do better than, say Ross Perot (who got no electoral votes, but sunk Bush41 in 1992): scale. It takes a whale of a party to carry a pond the size of the US. And really, the remaining two nominal parties seem wings of a deeper, stateful organization putting on a show every couple of years. If there is interest in altering the equation, I would suggest https://conventionofstates.com/ https://conventionofstates.com/

cryptgno 5y ago
Plurality voting systems lacking runoff elections lead to two-party states. Maurice Duverger pointed this out in 1964. The Convention of States is a campaign by the Tea Party movement to form an Article V convention, but they are more likely to present a balanced budget amendment, not electoral reform. Key people involved like Jim DeMint have also advocated for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage—a pretty silly idea if you ask me.
- smitty1e 5y ago
  The 16th and 17th Amendments, plus the Federal Reserve Act, all in 1913, along with the capping of the House of Representatives at 435 members in 1910, have driven the growth of the Administrative State. And the debt. So now there is a quasi-aristocracy running plays and putting on these electoral shows every couple of years. Calls for substantial reform. Technical people understand the need for clean architecture and political systems. Humans are not code, but our political- and tax systems are a Byzantine train wreck. On a good day. But go ahead and worry about DeMint's opinions, boss.
  - cryptgno 5y ago
    I agree that our political system is a train wreck, but I don't see why the political positions of the people you're suggesting amend the Constitution wouldn't be relevant.
    - smitty1e 5y ago
      Ah, so. I submit that perhaps the communication challenge may be rooted in the modern insistence in making ansolutely everything political. A Federalist construct would seek to assign appropriate tasking to each level of government, and have DC manage international and inter-State concerns. Arguably, a single, monolithic state try to manage every personal and local concern leads to gridlock, Q.E.D.

erentz 5y ago

> If people could confidently vote for another party there wouldn't be just two parties. If multimember districts are used with RCV yes. If not it tends to maintain a duopoly. Australia’s Senate uses RCV like voting with multimember districts and has more diversity than its House which uses single member districts. That said there is some benefit to using RCV even with single member districts as in theory it tends to moderate the candidates a bit as they want to appeal to more people. That said I think it’s a serious missed opportunity to press RCV without multimember districts.

Taniwha 5y ago
I think that RCV is at best a hack, a compromise for people who don't want to get too far from FPP. IMHO if you are electing individual people (a mayor, a US president, a city council, a US Senator) then STV is more equitable (it is pretty close to RCV if you are electing a single person). But if you are electing parties (like the US House) then MMP is a fairer solution
- ant6n 5y ago
  Ranked ballots in single member districts are really a hack on electoral reform movements. It creates the appearance of improving the system while only solving one of many problems. The hack worked in Canada and GB, where it was used to divide, confuse and ultimately scuttle the electoral reform process.
- gwright 5y ago
  > But if you are electing parties (like the US House) I'm not sure why you are phrasing it this way. Voters don't pick a party for their House representative, they pick a candidate. Each House district election is independent of all the others.
  - CameronNemo 5y ago
    Voters pick a candidate knowing that the candidate will have to play within a two party legislature. Third party legislators are shunned. Their bills get no traction, and they get no committee assignments. If they are seriously divergent, the House could easily have them removed.

thaumasiotes 5y ago

> The USA is a two-party state because of the voting system. There's much more to it than that. The two-party system is codified into many laws. A lot of effort goes into maintaining it; the voting system isn't up to that job.

JohnWhigham 5y ago
That's just a circular argument though. It's codified because the voting system has historically only allowed for two parties to flourish.