3 ms·

Or just forget the "third party" concept and jump straight to having fourth and fifth parties. The math of the three doesn't mix with US politics. The third p

Or just forget the "third party" concept and jump straight to having fourth and fifth parties. The math of the three doesn't mix with US politics. The third party will always be accused of splitting either the left or right majority, giving victory to the minority. But with fourth and fifth parties in the mix that is less of a problem. So many parties would also force politicians into cross-party coalitions, but that is probably a bridge to far for US political culture.

ceejayoz 3y ago
If a Ross Perot-style challenger appears on one side of the political spectrum, the other side's prospective fourth party has very good reason to sit down and shut up that election.
- sandworm101 3y ago
  Well, that wouldn't be a true multi-party system. That would be two parties (left and right) each putting forward multiple candidates until false presences. A proper party wouldn't back down like that because they would not be so influenced by the others.
  - lazide 3y ago
    Welcome to the United States.
    - NoGravitas 3y ago
      Hell, we don't even have a true two party system. "The United States is also a one-party state but, with typical American extravagance, they have two of them." - Julius Nyerere
- GartzenDeHaes 3y ago
  - John Anderson torpedoed Carter - Ralph Nader and Al Gore - Ross Perot got Bush I - Third party candidates received around 6 million votes in 2016
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    Each of these are examples of what I'm saying; in a particular election, one side gets a significant third-party candidate, and the other side does not, because it's not in their interest to kick themselves in the 'nads.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
XorNot 3y ago
No it's more of a problem. Because the winning party now has an even smaller share of the vote, and may represent no one's preferences. First past the post voting allows only two parties: because the winner is whichever party has less competitors for it's ideological niche. It explicitly destroys any concept of a market place of ideas being possible in politics.
mistercheph 3y ago
Having dozens of balkanized parties, each so insignificant as to be powerless, is a recipe for total corporate takeover of a democracy. I am dissatisfied with both American political parties, and I am inclined to have more parties rather than fewer, but if those parties are not strong enough to sustain political identities we will have a one party system
- wing-_-nuts 3y ago
  >a recipe for total corporate takeover of a democracy. Do you have an example to back this up? Europe is largely multiparty and yet seems to have much more 'corporate unfriendly' consumer protections than we do today.

ceejayoz 3y ago

If a Ross Perot-style challenger appears on one side of the political spectrum, the other side's prospective fourth party has very good reason to sit down and shut up that election.

sandworm101 3y ago
Well, that wouldn't be a true multi-party system. That would be two parties (left and right) each putting forward multiple candidates until false presences. A proper party wouldn't back down like that because they would not be so influenced by the others.
- lazide 3y ago
  Welcome to the United States.
  - NoGravitas 3y ago
    Hell, we don't even have a true two party system. "The United States is also a one-party state but, with typical American extravagance, they have two of them." - Julius Nyerere
GartzenDeHaes 3y ago
- John Anderson torpedoed Carter - Ralph Nader and Al Gore - Ross Perot got Bush I - Third party candidates received around 6 million votes in 2016
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  Each of these are examples of what I'm saying; in a particular election, one side gets a significant third-party candidate, and the other side does not, because it's not in their interest to kick themselves in the 'nads.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

XorNot 3y ago

No it's more of a problem. Because the winning party now has an even smaller share of the vote, and may represent no one's preferences. First past the post voting allows only two parties: because the winner is whichever party has less competitors for it's ideological niche. It explicitly destroys any concept of a market place of ideas being possible in politics.

mistercheph 3y ago

Having dozens of balkanized parties, each so insignificant as to be powerless, is a recipe for total corporate takeover of a democracy. I am dissatisfied with both American political parties, and I am inclined to have more parties rather than fewer, but if those parties are not strong enough to sustain political identities we will have a one party system

wing-_-nuts 3y ago
>a recipe for total corporate takeover of a democracy. Do you have an example to back this up? Europe is largely multiparty and yet seems to have much more 'corporate unfriendly' consumer protections than we do today.