3 ms·
It isn't right, but also... in the US, parties are institutionally weak. People do not (cannot) vote for parties, but for individual representatives. Ergo, diff
by adamc 4y ago
It isn't right, but also... in the US, parties are institutionally weak. People do not (cannot) vote for parties, but for individual representatives. Ergo, different Democrats (or Republicans) run on issues perceived to have saliency locally. From such a collection of elected individuals, it is much more difficult to craft a "party" position -- because in some districts, supporting healthcare/gun control/whatever is not a winner.
Increasing partisanship and gerrymandering are making this less true, but it is still a significant force, particularly for Senate seats.
Strong parties, that run on a policy platform and where they have much more control over their members, just isn't a thing in the US, and couldn't be, without a lot of constitutional changes.
- throwawaylinux 4y agoNot sure about that. Lots of voting systems don't vote for parties directly either. And I would say the two parties in the US are extremely strong, FPTP seems to reenforce that. It might also lead to the parties accepting some level of dissidence from some members -- better for a blue party to have a slightly red-ish congressman in a red state than to cede it to the other party. But I don't think that really weakens the parties because it goes both ways. Minor parties and coalition governments in other countries function in somewhat the same way. It's not uncommon for a party to win but not gain absolute power in the legislative branch of government, and have to compromise with others to pass laws and spending bills.