• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Is the US a two party state

Nihilianth said:
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.
Click to expand...
Anthills exist. That does not make them mountains.

People write in votes for Mickey Mouse, that does not mean the Mickey Mouse Party is a real political party.

The Green Party got a handful of idiots to vote for them, slightly more than voted for Mickey Mouse. That does not make them a viable political party. Until we fundamentally change the American political process (spoiler: we won't change it), then the Green Party is not a real political party just because it's the largest fringe party around. No more than the largest anthill you can find becomes a mountain.
 
Nihilianth said:
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.
Click to expand...
You're only confirming the accusation. The claim is clear to everyone here. You're not fooling anyone.
 
So, which multi party coalitions has the US had in the past 100 years or so?
You know, something where it was clear there were multiple political parties, with multiple leaders all having an influence on government policy?
 
Silly, argument is silly. Sure, other parties are not illegal the way it would be in a one-party system, but the US is functionally a two-party system. The first past the post basically creates the situation with where there will only be two significant parties and both parties have arranged the legal requirements for ballot access such that new parties and in some case the existing minor parties can't get access. So, sure, its not technically or legally a two-party system but how does that actually matter?

That being, there's an argument for why the US parties were really coalitions of various regional parties until sometime between 70ish and 90ish.

Dems were a coalition of Southern Racists, Northern Progressives and Black Americans from about FDR to about 1970sih. The GOP was north eastern bankers, western libertarians, and southern not totally racists around the same time frame.

The original progressives had representation in both parties along with established interests.
 
Last edited:
wareyin said:
Anthills exist. That does not make them mountains.
Click to expand...
Thank you for agreeing with me! Anthills exist. They are not mountains. More than two parties exist. It is not a two-party system. I don;t know why this needed to be so gosh darn difficult.
wareyin said:
People write in votes for Mickey Mouse, that does not mean the Mickey Mouse Party is a real political party.
Click to expand...
wareyin said:
The Green Party got a handful of idiots to vote for them, slightly more than voted for Mickey Mouse. That does not make them a viable political party. Until we fundamentally change the American political process (spoiler: we won't change it), then the Green Party is not a real political party just because it's the largest fringe party around. No more than the largest anthill you can find becomes a mountain.
Click to expand...

People also draw pictures of fictional planets and things. That doesn't mean that has anything to do with real planets that actually exist. This is a strawman argument.
 
ahhell said:
Silly, argument is silly. Sure, other parties are not illegal the way it would be in a one-party system, but the US is functionally a two-party system. The first past the post basically creates the situation with where there will only be two significant parties and both parties have arranged the legal requirements for ballot access such that new parties and in some case the existing minor parties can't get access. So, sure, its not technically or legally a two-party system but how does that actually matter?

That being, there's an argument for why the US parties were really coalitions of various regional parties until sometime between 70ish and 90ish.
Click to expand...

You just contradicted yourself and confirmed my argument.

Its a first past the post system. Not a two-party system. First past the post doesn't ban other parties, like a two-party system would.
 
Nihilianth said:
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.
Click to expand...
In the sense that other parties exist, yes.

Realistically there are only two parties that have or ever will have barring some major shakeup, a chance at getting elected.

It is a de jure multi party system. It is a de facto two party system.
 
Nihilianth said:
You just contradicted yourself and confirmed my argument.

Its a first past the post system. Not a two-party system. First past the post doesn't ban other parties, like a two-party system would.
Click to expand...
So, why should I care that it's not legally a two-party system when it clearly functions as a two-party system. That's a legit question, why is it important to you to make the distinction that the US is not really a two-party system when you seem to agree that there are only two parties of note and there has never really been more than two parties of note.
 
Nihilianth said:
Thank you for agreeing with me! Anthills exist. They are not mountains. More than two parties exist. It is not a two-party system. I don;t know why this needed to be so gosh darn difficult.
Click to expand...
Anthills and fringe parties both exist. That does not make an anthill a mountain or a fringe party a real political party. This is not difficult.
Nihilianth said:
People also draw pictures of fictional planets and things. That doesn't mean that has anything to do with real planets that actually exist. This is a strawman argument.
Click to expand...
Real planets existing does not make an asteroid a planet in the same way that real political parties existing does not make the Green Party a real political party.
 
Nihilianth said:
You just contradicted yourself and confirmed my argument.

Its a first past the post system. Not a two-party system. First past the post doesn't ban other parties, like a two-party system would.
Click to expand...
Two party systems don't ban other parties. You know that.
 
A perusal of various sources on the internet suggests that he most common definition of "Two Party System" is a political system in which two parties dominate the political system or where two parties consistently get the majority of the votes. So, the US is a two party system.
 
Nihilianth said:
Hence, why this is better called a "First Past the Post System," and NOT a "two-party system." FPPS is far more accurate.
Click to expand...
You're comparing apples with paint. First Past the Post describes a set of electoral laws by which votes are counted to elect candidates. "Two party" is a count of the effective number of parties that can achievably get into government. They are describing distinct and separate aspects of America's electoral system. "Two party" does not describe any kind of electoral laws. The only way you could link them is to say that the First Past the Post electoral system has resulted in only two parties having a chance of actually being elected.
 
America has a multiparty system. The problem is that too many people imagine that parties that can't even book local or regional wins areshould be competitive in national elections, otherwise it's a "two party" state. Show me a party that's won a some city council seats, a mayorship or two, and I'll show you a party that's ready to compete with the GOP and the DNC at the state level. Show me a party that's won seats in state legislatures, and a couple of governorships, and I'll show you a party that's ready to compete at the national level.

There's nothing in the America system that prevents a third, or fourth, or fifth party from getting into Congress, or even into the Presidency. It's just that none of them bother to actually try.
 
I'll say what I said in the other thread before I realised that this one exists.

"Two-party system" is not a set of electoral laws that determine how votes are counted and candidates elected. It is a description of how many parties have a realistic possibility of forming a government. "First Past the Post" is a set of electoral laws. They don't describe the same thing.

At best, you can say that First Past the Post leads to a system in which only two parties have a realistic chance of getting into government.
 
There's now a thread for the two-party question.

steenkh

Split Thread Thread 'Is the US a two party state'

Nihilianth said:
Theres literally no such thing as a "two party system," and I like how you took a few words out of that entire post, lol. You either have a single-party system, such as a fascist or communist nation often are, or you havea multiparty system like the US, UK, Germany, etc all have.
Click to expand...
If you had functioning multi-party system, you wouldn't have a Republican Party that has members that span from the centre to the far-right, and a Democratic Party that spans the centre to the far left. On paper you can have more than one party, but the election system favours the two parties to the de...
  • Like
  • Love
 
wareyin said:
Two party systems don't ban other parties. You know that.
Click to expand...
I've never even heard of such a thing. History is not my strong suit, so I welcome any examples.

One would think that in any society willing to ban all but two parties, one of those parties would ban their sole competitor at the first opportunity.
 
I didn't have hope for this thread since the trolling was way too obvious, but I'm finding myself having to eat my thoughts. Molehills, North Korea, drawings of asteroids, this is like a Monty Python skit🍿.

INT. British pub, two gentlemen sit at a table with their pints.

"Can't wait to see the game tonight! 11 of our finest players will face off against--"
"Whaddaya mean eleven?! Thousands in this city play soccer, you muppet!"
"Yeah, but they aren't on the bloody field tonight, are they?"
"That doesn't mean they don't exist, do they? There you go just erasing them from existence like a goddamned bigot!"
"I'm not erasing them from existence, I'm just saying they'll have bugger all to do with our team winnin'!"
"There, you're doing it again! Lying and saying there's not more people playing soccer in this town than those 11 on the field! I'd be gobsmacked!"

After five minutes of increasingly nonsensical quibbling:
"...Yes, but a haybale still exists, you bonehead! Just because it's not a whole pasture of fresh grass with frolicking horses--"
"There are no frolicking horses in the pastures, it's bloody November, you berk!"
"But I told you, my child has been drawing them, are you daft as a brush?!"
"Well, yeah, children can draw all sorts of things, that doesn't prove--"


(Eta: I don't mean to ridicule people using metaphors, mind, they can be a really effective teaching tool, it's just the sum of it all, and the way they just never seem to work in this case)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom