5 ms·

>The real explanation must lie in other aspects of US culture, or the US political system First-past-the-post voting leads to a two party system which leads to

by slg 5y ago

>The real explanation must lie in other aspects of US culture, or the US political system First-past-the-post voting leads to a two party system which leads to more polarization. If you have multiple political parties, polarization can only go so far because there will be centrist groups working against polarization. In the US, there is no force pushing for centrism.

timClicks 5y ago
I thought that a 2 party system means that both parties attempt to occupy the center, because there are so few swing voters.
- quadrangle 5y ago
  They don't have to be in the center, they just have to make the lesser-evil argument. They just need to express to the swing voters that the other party is even more extreme.
- maxfurman 5y ago
  In theory perhaps, but in practice it turns out that casting a clear distinction from the other party drives turnout.
- Karrot_Kream 5y ago
  That assumes a model where most of the electorate is politically moderate. A sort of "normal distribution" where the mean is centered around centrism. These days, the US electorate is highly polarized and the parties are responding in kind.
- wrycoder 5y ago
  This. The result is what I call the democratic (small d) wobble. Each party gives just enough to win (in their judgement) and the independents choose. The result is a wobble left for awhile, then a wobble right.
  - mst 5y ago
    A bunch of models I've seen suggest that from 2016 onwards negative polarisation means that it's turnout of each side's base, not independents, that's deciding elections now. However the resulting wobbling isn't much different in practice outcome-wise so far because turnout tends to depend on level of outrage which depends on how long the other side's been in power, it's had much more significant of an effect on how elections need to be fought. (much information about this can be found by googling 'negative partisanship' or 'rachel bitecofer' +/- the word 'model', I'm not including specific links because which outlets/articles/etc. will be preferable to a given reader will likely vary so providing a guide to finding a range to select from seems more useful than my trying to select on others' behalf)
46756e 5y ago
I agree that this is the likely biggest contributor but it also makes me incredibly sad because I don't see anyway that this is fixed. There is absolutely no way either political party will allow a multi-party system to ever exist.
- scythe 5y ago
  >There is absolutely no way either political party will allow a multi-party system to ever exist. I've suspected for a while that the real secret to getting PR/MMP (=> multiparty) in the US is getting the Catholics on board. They're sick of the Trumpists and libertarians in the Republican Party but they'll never support the vehemently pro-choice Democrats. They should be obvious fans of a multiparty movement, and they have the political and media heft to move the needle. Alas, I'm not Christian and my views are quite a bit left of theirs, so I don't think they'll listen to me. And most PR advocates have more in common with me than with the modal Catholic American.
  - noizejoy 5y ago
    Side note: Facebook reminds me a lot of the catholic church.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- throw_away 5y ago
  But it's also the sort of thing where you don't have to change the whole system all at once in one go. There are now two states that will use RCV for federal elections as well as many more local municipalities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_Un... ). With any luck, these reforms can stick and hopefully expand— necessary steps if we're ever to end this political duopoly.
philistine 5y ago
I despise first-past-the-post, but it does not force two party systems. Look at the UK and Canada, who have two parties able to form a government, but multiple viable parties. If you want a culprit, blame the lack of whipping that both US parties do as a matter of political culture. Since you have historically had all these cuckoo crazy subgroups within both parties, it has meant that other parties simply do not have the bandwidth to exist. However, in the last four years, the Republicans have started to blindly follow their leader as a matter of pride. I see that as the one positive change the Trump era has brought; yes the man to bring it about has been a disgrace, and has used it for vile purposes, but if both parties stick to following their political platforms and leaders far more, the US can end up in a better place.
- slg 5y ago
  First-past-the-post voting is the primary cause in the US. It doesn't automatically result in a two party system everywhere if there are other features of the government that work against it. The biggest reason Canada is different is that they have a parliamentary system that elects their Prime Minister while the US has the Electoral College which elects our President.
  - skissane 5y ago
    > The biggest reason Canada is different is that they have a parliamentary system that elects their Prime Minister Quebec is another big difference–there is nothing really comparable in the US. Spanish is the closest thing the US has to French, but there is no state in which Spanish outranks English–and even if predominantly Spanish-speaking Puerto Rico successfully gains statehood, Puerto Rico would be only a medium-sized state in terms of population, so it will not be able to have the same impact on US national politics that Quebec has on Canadian. The US has a lot of cultural diversity, but its cultural diversity is spread out thinly, rather than being regionally concentrated – as a result, that cultural diversity can't be reflected in the political sphere in the same way that it is in Canada or the UK or Belgium or Spain, where the distinctive culture of specific regions of the country causes them to develop their own unique party systems.
  - 5y ago

by slg 5y ago

timClicks 5y ago

I thought that a 2 party system means that both parties attempt to occupy the center, because there are so few swing voters.

quadrangle 5y ago
They don't have to be in the center, they just have to make the lesser-evil argument. They just need to express to the swing voters that the other party is even more extreme.
maxfurman 5y ago
In theory perhaps, but in practice it turns out that casting a clear distinction from the other party drives turnout.
Karrot_Kream 5y ago
That assumes a model where most of the electorate is politically moderate. A sort of "normal distribution" where the mean is centered around centrism. These days, the US electorate is highly polarized and the parties are responding in kind.
wrycoder 5y ago
This. The result is what I call the democratic (small d) wobble. Each party gives just enough to win (in their judgement) and the independents choose. The result is a wobble left for awhile, then a wobble right.
- mst 5y ago
  A bunch of models I've seen suggest that from 2016 onwards negative polarisation means that it's turnout of each side's base, not independents, that's deciding elections now. However the resulting wobbling isn't much different in practice outcome-wise so far because turnout tends to depend on level of outrage which depends on how long the other side's been in power, it's had much more significant of an effect on how elections need to be fought. (much information about this can be found by googling 'negative partisanship' or 'rachel bitecofer' +/- the word 'model', I'm not including specific links because which outlets/articles/etc. will be preferable to a given reader will likely vary so providing a guide to finding a range to select from seems more useful than my trying to select on others' behalf)

46756e 5y ago

I agree that this is the likely biggest contributor but it also makes me incredibly sad because I don't see anyway that this is fixed. There is absolutely no way either political party will allow a multi-party system to ever exist.

scythe 5y ago
>There is absolutely no way either political party will allow a multi-party system to ever exist. I've suspected for a while that the real secret to getting PR/MMP (=> multiparty) in the US is getting the Catholics on board. They're sick of the Trumpists and libertarians in the Republican Party but they'll never support the vehemently pro-choice Democrats. They should be obvious fans of a multiparty movement, and they have the political and media heft to move the needle. Alas, I'm not Christian and my views are quite a bit left of theirs, so I don't think they'll listen to me. And most PR advocates have more in common with me than with the modal Catholic American.
- noizejoy 5y ago
  Side note: Facebook reminds me a lot of the catholic church.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
throw_away 5y ago
But it's also the sort of thing where you don't have to change the whole system all at once in one go. There are now two states that will use RCV for federal elections as well as many more local municipalities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_Un... ). With any luck, these reforms can stick and hopefully expand— necessary steps if we're ever to end this political duopoly.

philistine 5y ago

I despise first-past-the-post, but it does not force two party systems. Look at the UK and Canada, who have two parties able to form a government, but multiple viable parties. If you want a culprit, blame the lack of whipping that both US parties do as a matter of political culture. Since you have historically had all these cuckoo crazy subgroups within both parties, it has meant that other parties simply do not have the bandwidth to exist. However, in the last four years, the Republicans have started to blindly follow their leader as a matter of pride. I see that as the one positive change the Trump era has brought; yes the man to bring it about has been a disgrace, and has used it for vile purposes, but if both parties stick to following their political platforms and leaders far more, the US can end up in a better place.

slg 5y ago
First-past-the-post voting is the primary cause in the US. It doesn't automatically result in a two party system everywhere if there are other features of the government that work against it. The biggest reason Canada is different is that they have a parliamentary system that elects their Prime Minister while the US has the Electoral College which elects our President.
- skissane 5y ago
  > The biggest reason Canada is different is that they have a parliamentary system that elects their Prime Minister Quebec is another big difference–there is nothing really comparable in the US. Spanish is the closest thing the US has to French, but there is no state in which Spanish outranks English–and even if predominantly Spanish-speaking Puerto Rico successfully gains statehood, Puerto Rico would be only a medium-sized state in terms of population, so it will not be able to have the same impact on US national politics that Quebec has on Canadian. The US has a lot of cultural diversity, but its cultural diversity is spread out thinly, rather than being regionally concentrated – as a result, that cultural diversity can't be reflected in the political sphere in the same way that it is in Canada or the UK or Belgium or Spain, where the distinctive culture of specific regions of the country causes them to develop their own unique party systems.
- 5y ago