Split Thread Is the US a two party state

[Nihilianth]

The first past the post system makes it a 2 party system. Stop banging the table that combining every single non 'Dem or Rep' vote combined is millions. No other party got 1 million votes. Combining every single 3rd party voter from the entire country got equivalent to the what losing candidate got in Georgia alone!

Its a multiiparty system, and no matter how much you try to deny that FACT, doesn't change the fact that over 50 parties in the United States exist, and three of those parties combined get nearly 3 million votes. Nor does it change the fact that no two parties combined can ever reach 100% of the votes. Can't happen. Doesn't happen. And will never happen.

 

[Nihilianth]

It's not "difficult to understand", it's just wrong.

You're wrong. Period. The moon exists, so does Mt. Everest. And anthropogenic climate change is real. Period.

 

[3point14]

It would be a Ranked-Choice system, as opposed to a First Past the Post system with only one cadidate that you can choose.

If anything, a First Past the Post system is actually MORE accurate to call a "one-party" system than a "two-party" system, since you can only vote for ONE candidate.

Is it really this difficult to understand?

I think that when a vote for any party other than the two primary ones is considered a wasted vote and there is zero chance of an election returning anything but a candidate for one of the two main parties, we can safely call the system that creates that outcome a 'two party system'.

To test this, go to your local bookmakers and ask them want the return would be on a bet that one of either a Democrat or a Republican will be the next president of the USA. Please let me know what odds they offer you.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Again, they don't "technically" exist. They "DO" exist. That's like asking if the moon technically exists. It DOES exist. Period. I don't care what other people think, or how that is even relevant.

More than two parties absolutely do exist. If they didnt exist, they wouldn't have generated over a million votes, and the Democratic and Republican votes would add up to 100% combined, every single time. But that virtually never happens. Why? Because other parties DO exist.

The problem is that we have a FIRST PAST THE POST system of elections. (NOT a "two-party system.")

As I suspected, you're just strawmanning at this point. When people say we have a two-party system, they largely mean the following:

A. While there are technically more than two parties...
B. We functionally only have two, because every other party has so little power that their existence can be safely ignored for the purpose of enacting political change.

You're taking that and interpreting it to mean something different and attacking the strawman.

 

[I Am The Scum]

As I suspected, you're just strawmanning at this point. When people say we have a two-party system, they largely mean the following:

A. While there are technically more than two parties...
B. We functionally only have two, because every other party has so little power that their existence can be safely ignored for the purpose of enacting political change.

By the way, if anyone here affirms the position, "The United States is a two-party system" and does not agree with the above, then feel free to speak up.

 

[wareyin]

You're wrong. Period. The moon exists, so does Mt. Everest. And anthropogenic climate change is real. Period.

And no third party matters. Period. You are comparing real, existing things that affect our world with fringe candidates who get less than 0.01% of the vote, do not exist outside of popping up every 4 years for random loons to waste their vote on, and do not affect anything.

 

[wareyin]

Its a multiiparty system, and no matter how much you try to deny that FACT, doesn't change the fact that over 50 parties in the United States exist, and three of those parties combined get nearly 3 million votes. Nor does it change the fact that no two parties combined can ever reach 100% of the votes. Can't happen. Doesn't happen. And will never happen.

Wait, so even in the dishonest method of combining all votes for every fringe candidate to get your less than 2% of votes, even you admit that out of the 50 parties you keep banging on about, 47 combined can't even get 100,000 votes?

You do realize that combining all of the fringe votes is meaningless, right? Because they aren't interchangeable, your "rent is too damn high" party voters are not the same as the Libertarian party voters, do not want that candidate or that party's policies, right? They aren't a coalition, they aren't working together, and they do NOT agree on policies, proposals, laws, or visions for the country, so it's dishonest to combine them.

 

[Random]

<snip>

You do realize that combining all of the fringe votes is meaningless, right? Because they aren't interchangeable, your "rent is too damn high" party voters are not the same as the Libertarian party voters, do not want that candidate or that party's policies, right? They aren't a coalition, they aren't working together, and they do NOT agree on policies, proposals, laws, or visions for the country, so it's dishonest to combine them.

This.

This is also one of the main issues that I have with the "We must move to the center to attract moderates" types. There are no "moderates" that can be easily reached. We have a bunch of voters with liberal beliefs, a bunch of voters with conservative beliefs, and a bunch of voters with unpredictable mixes of conservative and liberal beliefs. You can't appeal to the pro-life, anti-gun voters AND the pro-choice, pro-gun voters at the same time.

 

[steenkh]

I am waiting for @Nihilianth to point to the other parties' representatives in Congress, and an explanation why he/she doesn't think that FPTP favours just two parties in Congress, alternatively an explanation why somehow the other parties are not there although there's nothing built into FPTP that favours just two parties.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Yeah, this is just quibbling at this point. The US consistently has only two parties with a chance of winning elections. We call that situation a two-party system. That there are also other parties and they get a tiny number of votes every election doesn't change that.

Here's a diagram showing 2025 election results in the Norwegian parliamentary election, this is what a multi-party system looks like. All of these parties (except the ones in the 'other' column to the far-right) affect election results, to the point where the number of votes for some minor party can swing an entire election because it decides which coalition ends up large enough to take power.

 

[Nihilianth]

I think that when a vote for any party other than the two primary ones is considered a wasted vote and there is zero chance of an election returning anything but a candidate for one of the two main parties, we can safely call the system that creates that outcome a 'two party system'.

To test this, go to your local bookmakers and ask them want the return would be on a bet that one of either a Democrat or a Republican will be the next president of the USA. Please let me know what odds they offer you.

I guess you can't call a planet a planet, but rather a microscopic dot that only 'technically exists" instead, just because its less than 1% of the size of the sun. And a large mountain like Mt. Everest is just an "ant hill" because its less than 1% of the size of the planet. And humans are just microscopic cells and not humans since they are less than 1% of the size of Mt. Everest.

Words mean things. You don't get to change the phraasings of words of things based only on how large one thing is compared to another. A human is still a human. It isn't "technically" a human. It's a human.

Mt. Everest is still a mountain. It isn't "technically" a mountain. It's a mountain.

The earth is still a planet. it isn't 'technically" a planet. It's a planet.

Just because YOU insist on erroneously calling it a "two party system," doesn't mean it isn't ACTUALLY a First Past the Post system. If someone insisted that Mt. Everest is just an anthill, that doesn't make it an anthill.

 

[Nihilianth]

As I suspected, you're just strawmanning at this point. When people say we have a two-party system, they largely mean the following:

A. While there are technically more than two parties...
B. We functionally only have two, because every other party has so little power that their existence can be safely ignored for the purpose of enacting political change.

You're taking that and interpreting it to mean something different and attacking the strawman.

No. YOU are making it a strawman argument. It is very clearly NOT a "two party system." It is a "First Past the Post" system. There. Is. No. such. thing. as. a two. party. system. No such thing. Period. You are only using a technicality to insist other parties don't exist and don't participate.

Again, change the voting system to a ranked choice voting system, and those very same parties would do much better. Which suggests it isn't codified by law that they are not allowed to exist. If only two parties were by law allowed to exist, then it WOULD be a "two party system." But there is no such law. Just like with fascists and communists. They are one-party systems, because any other political party is codified by law to be illegal. Changing the voting to a ranked choice wouldn't change the fact that only one party would still exist.

 

[wareyin]

I guess you can't call a planet a planet, but rather a microscopic dot that only 'technically exists" instead, just because its less than 1% of the size of the sun. And a large mountain like Mt. Everest is just an "ant hill" because its less than 1% of the size of the planet. And humans are just microscopic cells and not humans since they are less than 1% of the size of Mt. Everest.

Words mean things. You don't get to change the phraasings of words of things based only on how large one thing is compared to another. A human is still a human. It isn't "technically" a human. It's a human.

Mt. Everest is still a mountain. It isn't "technically" a mountain. It's a mountain.

The earth is still a planet. it isn't 'technically" a planet. It's a planet.

Just because YOU insist on erroneously calling it a "two party system," doesn't mean it isn't ACTUALLY a First Past the Post system. If someone insisted that Mt. Everest is just an anthill, that doesn't make it an anthill.

To be clear though, if someone insists that that anthill is actually a mountain, they're wrong even though both things are hill shaped.

Hey, that's sort of like if someone is comparing a political party with zero members in any elected position, who can't get more than half a million votes countrywide, to an actual political party with actual elected politicians and all!

 

[3point14]

I guess you can't call a planet a planet, but rather a microscopic dot that only 'technically exists" instead, just because its less than 1% of the size of the sun. And a large mountain like Mt. Everest is just an "ant hill" because its less than 1% of the size of the planet. And humans are just microscopic cells and not humans since they are less than 1% of the size of Mt. Everest.

Words mean things. You don't get to change the phraasings of words of things based only on how large one thing is compared to another. A human is still a human. It isn't "technically" a human. It's a human.

Mt. Everest is still a mountain. It isn't "technically" a mountain. It's a mountain.

The earth is still a planet. it isn't 'technically" a planet. It's a planet.

Just because YOU insist on erroneously calling it a "two party system," doesn't mean it isn't ACTUALLY a First Past the Post system. If someone insisted that Mt. Everest is just an anthill, that doesn't make it an anthill.

None of this makes any sense to me. Sorry.

I'm curious as to why you're so invested in this. I think it's very obvious to most that the USA is a de facto two party system. A quick look at the results of any election going back bloody years shows that the winner always and without fail comes from one of two parties. It is, without question, a system that inevitably and without any chance of change, returns one of two winners, i.e. a two party system.

Are you trying to paint the US system, described by so many scholars as a 'flawed' or 'partial' democracy, as more democratic than it actually is?

 

[Nihilianth]

Yeah, this is just quibbling at this point. The US consistently has only two parties with a chance of winning elections. We call that situation a two-party system. That there are also other parties and they get a tiny number of votes every election doesn't change that.

Here's a diagram showing 2025 election results in the Norwegian parliamentary election, this is what a multi-party system looks like. All of these parties (except the ones in the 'other' column to the far-right) affect election results, to the point where the number of votes for some minor party can swing an entire election because it decides which coalition ends up large enough to take power.

View attachment 65898

No. We don't. We literally call this a "multiparty system."

They are not banned by law. Like fascists and communists do in other countries. They are literally one-party systems, as only one party is allowed to exist. Even if they instituted a ranked-choice voting system, they would still only have communists or fascists win elections. It doesn't matter what their voting system is. Only a single party exists.

The United States has over 50 political parties. They DO exist. They are not banned by law to exist. If you change the voting system to a ranked-choice system instead of first past the post, you see all of those parties with even more votes than they currently receive. But even still, you DO see them receive votes as it is. Enough so, to affect the outcome of virtually every single election.

 

[wareyin]

When people write in "Mickey Mouse" for President, I guess that's proof that the Mickey Mouse Party exists as a real, truly honest to god political party! Whodathunkit!

And according to Nihilianth's 'anthill is actually a mountain because I say so' definition, this is a political party.

 

[mumblethrax]

There. Is. No. such. thing. as. a two. party. system. No such thing.

There is such a thing as a two-party system, provided that we understand what "two-party system" means. It does not mean "a system in which exactly two parties exist". It means "a system in which two parties of roughly equal strength are so dominant that no other parties can compete with them."

Again, change the voting system to a ranked choice voting system, and those very same parties would do much better. Which suggests it isn't codified by law that they are not allowed to exist.

We don't need to "suggest" that, it's just something we can look up. We all know that the problem isn't that minor parties aren't permitted to exist, so this is in fact a straw man.

You shouldn't have to work this hard to misunderstand something.

 

[Nihilianth]

None of this makes any sense to me. Sorry.

I'm curious as to why you're so invested in this. I think it's very obvious to most that the USA is a de facto two party system. A quick look at the results of any election going back bloody years shows that the winner always and without fail comes from one of two parties. It is, without question, a system that inevitably and without any chance of change, returns one of two winners, i.e. a two party system.

Are you trying to paint the US system, described by so many scholars as a 'flawed' or 'partial' democracy, as more democratic than it actually is?

Why you people insist on constantly promoting the idea that there is only two parties, is the entire problem here!

I've already said this multiple times!

To begin with, the Democratic party is a coalition party! It includes conservatives, libertarians, liberals, progressives, and even independents.

The fact that every single one of the states that have agreed to the National Popular Vote Compact, are all either blue or purple states. Almost all of them are outright blue states. A few states where it's pending are purple.

The National Popular Vote Compact would effectively override the electoral college system, which means that the Coalition Democratic party has a hell of a lot better chances of winning more elections.

Also, as I've already stated multiple times, three entire states have instituted ranked-choice for state-wide elections. And all of the large blue Coalition Democratic cities have done so for local elections.

This suggests that the Democratic Party is NOT a single party itself. It's a coalition party, as mainline Democrats do NOT support these measures, just like the RepubliNazis in general don't. But a growing number of those who vote for Democrats DO support these measures, because they WANT their ACTUAL party to be able to compete. As they should.

You keep calling it a "two party system" only feeds into the propaganda ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ of the mainline Democrats and RepubliNazis.

It/s Not. A. Two. Party. System!

It's not. It just isn't. Not any more than Mt. Everest is an anthill compared to the size of the planet Earth. Just because the minor parties get less than 1% of the vote, doesn't mean they aren't political parties that are participating in elections and winning votes.

Once people get this through their thick skulls, they can start exploring WHICH parties exist? And how can we get them to step up? The solution to the latter question is ALREADY CURRENTLY HAPPENING. But most Americans are conveniently oblivious to this fact, because they dontinue to think that only two parties exist, and that there aren't already measures in place that getting stronger and spreading to more areas. Measures such as...."

Ranked choice in all the major cities as well as three states
And the National Popular Vote Compact that needs some more states to join in order to become reality.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Why you people insist on constantly promoting the idea that there is only two parties.

Yeah, we're done here. This thread was already giving strong "I don't drive a car, I drive an Audi!" vibes, and that was before the strawmen appeared.

 

[Nihilianth]

When people write in "Mickey Mouse" for President, I guess that's proof that the Mickey Mouse Party exists as a real, truly honest to god political party! Whodathunkit!

And according to Nihilianth's 'anthill is actually a mountain because I say so' definition, this is a political party.

YOU'RE the one calling a mountain an anthill. I'M the one saying that a mountain is a mountain, and an anthill is an anthill. The tiny, microscopic size of Mount Everest compared to the size of the Planet Earth, doesn't "functionally" or otherwise, change the definition of calling it a "mountain."

Just because Mt. Everest is tiny compared to the whole of the planet Earth, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It doesn't mean it's an anthill. It doesn't mean its a car. It doesn't mean it's a tree. It doesn't mean its water. It's a mountain. It is described and defined as a mountain. Words mean things.

The Green Party exists. It received 800,000 votes in the last election. Just because it's tiny compared to the Democratic or Republican Parties, doesn't mean it isn't a political party that participates in elections. That makes it THREE parties. The Constitution Party received 54,0000 votes. Thats a political party. It exists, and it participates in elections. That makes it FOUR parties.

The Green and Constitutional Parties are no cars. They are not anthills. They are not the moon. They are not water. They are definitionally political parties. They definitely exist, and they definitely function, and they definitely participate in elections. Therefore, it is NOT a "two party system." Rather, it is a "first past the post system," which is hell of a lot closer to ending than most voters believe. And only because of the efforts of non-Democrat Democrats who have joined the Democratic Party as a coalition to make it happen.