• 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

MarkCorrigan said:
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.
Click to expand...
And aside from the creation of the party system, every shake up in US politics has been one party replacing it's less focused and less organised, but ideologically similar, predecessor.
 
I Am The Scum said:
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.
Click to expand...
Current history says "no". Look at Russia: Putin bans bans any party, or imprison leaders that he doesn't like. But he does leave parties that collaborates with him, to have a veneer of legitimacy. I shall never forget a presidential election some time ago, where the only allowed opposition candidate was one who recommended the voters to vote Putin,
 
steenkh said:
Current history says "no". Look at Russia: Putin bans bans any party, or imprison leaders that he doesn't like. But he does leave parties that collaborates with him, to have a veneer of legitimacy. I shall never forget a presidential election some time ago, where the only allowed opposition candidate was one who recommended the voters to vote Putin,
Click to expand...
At least lesst that shows how eager they are to pretend to be a democracy. Just like the democratic people's republic of north Korea...
 
steenkh said:
Current history says "no". Look at Russia: Putin bans bans any party, or imprison leaders that he doesn't like. But he does leave parties that collaborates with him, to have a veneer of legitimacy. I shall never forget a presidential election some time ago, where the only allowed opposition candidate was one who recommended the voters to vote Putin,
Click to expand...
That's the example I thought of too. I'm sure there are some others where the dictator allows a token opposition for a veneer of legitimacy.
 
At least the USA will never call itself the Democratic anything. The Regime wouldn't want to be associated with the Democratic party that way.

Heck, I'm sure quite a few trumpkins believe North Korea and Congo are called what they are because they're ruled by the 'Democrat party'. I've seen them in comments threads calling people in Canada and whatever Democrats, and believing that every country has a Democrat party. Bless their little hearts.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Since Clinton, it's a One Party system. Since Trump it's a One Party, One Wrecking Ball system.
Click to expand...
Well, at least I don't think the US is a One Party System, but it is true that the system is designed so that the one of the two parties that has slightly more than half the votes can use a wrecking ball — and the last vestige of minority protection which I understand is the filibuster — can only delay it. It is just a question of ruthlessness.
 
Safe-Keeper said:
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)
Click to expand...
I’m curious to know what happened to the horses.
Were they frolicking on the football ground or not?
 
theprestige said:
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.
Click to expand...
Sorry, admins, I know there is a split thread for this, but I would like to respond to this post, if I may:

This is exactly my point. People are saying that independents are not winning elections, when this is very clearly false. There are currently 4 Independents serving in Congress, all of them Senators. Bernie Sanders being the most well-known. Sanders is affiliated with the Vermont Progressive Party, which is just a state party. Not even a national party. And he is a US Senator. To say that other parties don't exist, or that they don't win elections, is just plain flat-out wrong.

Angus King isn't even in a party at all. He is a true Independent, though he does caucus with the Democrats.
Joe Manchin is another true Indy, though he did win his election as a Democrat, and dropped out of the party last year.
Kyrstyn Sinema was once a Green Party candidate. Joined the Democrats, and dropped from the DNC in 2022 and has been a true Indy since then. Though she probably could win an election as a Green Party candidate should she decide to join them again.

Now, it isn't that they don't try. It's rather that they can't win significant numbers of seats or presidential votes due purely by happenstance of how the First Past the Post voting system works. Rather than say that we are a 'two-party system," it is much better to say that we are a "winner-take-all" system in which you only get to vote for a single candidate for each seat you are voting for. Which is what a First Past the Post system even is in the first place.

It's really odd to me that so many people complain about it being a "two-party system," and say that it needs to change.

Before you can change the system, you first have to acknowledge what the "system" ACTUALLY is, and stop saying what it is NOT. Basically, this is the "root cause" mind frame. You can't ever fix what's broken, without first identifying what is actually broken. Manufacturing, mechanics.... hell, even Alcoholics Anonymous uses this method when they insist that alcoholics admit that they not only have a problem, but what that problem even is.

The PROBLEM the "winner-take-all" voting system, more formally known as "first past the post." But knowing what the system actually is, isn't good enough. You have to know WHY it's a problem.

The reason it's a problem, stems from "game theory" and mathematics. Voters eventually wind up voting AGAINST what they definitely do NOT want! Rather than voting FOR what they DO want. Liberals definitely 1000000% do NOT want right wing MAGAs to continue to be in charge. So what do they do?

They vote for the one single candidate (because that's all they can vote for in a winner-take-all voting system) that stands the best chance of defeating a MAGAt. Rather than voting for who they ACTUALLY want to vote for, which would be one of several other parties not named a "Democrat." And they can include the "Democrat" at the bottom of their ticket as a last-ditch effort in a ranked-choice voting system. There is no penalty to their ideology for not putting the Democrat on the top of their ticket. They can still safely vote for other candidates without risking "throwing their vote away."
 
Helen said:
Shouldn't this thread be titled "Is the US a tea party state?"

And is this the right thread if I want to ask if the US is a democracy or a republic?
Click to expand...
I Am The Scum said:
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.
Click to expand...
Helen said:
Shouldn't this thread be titled "Is the US a tea party state?"

And is this the right thread if I want to ask if the US is a democracy or a republic?
Click to expand...

I've actually figured out how to use the Multiquote function! Finally!! :D

As I said in my previous post, there is a reason why I have continually said in multiple posts that "two party systems" do not exist! They cannot exist! It would effectively be impossible to exist! It would be non-sensical for them to exist! if a government is in the business of banning all other parties, then it would ban its closest rival as well. Hence: You either have a single-party system like the Nazis/fascists and communists, or you have a multiparty system. There is no such thing as a "two-party system." Period. There just isn't.

Once again, we are a "First Past the Post" or "winner-take-all" voting system. Not a 'two party system."

If you have a problem with something, you need to find the root cause of said problem. Which means you have to first define the actual problem.

In this case, our problem is that we have two main parties that overwhelmingly win nearly all of the elections, and garner 95% of the vote between them. This is not the root cause. What causes this?

Just simply saying "it's a two-party system" is meaningless. Great. It's a two party system. How do you fix this? Well, this is the crux of your problem here:

You COULD say: "We could allow more parties to exist." Great. Awesome. Problem is:

We DO allow other parties to exist! Obviously this is not a solution. People are still voting for one of the two major parties anyway. And why is that?

Oh! I know! Let's call it a 'two-party system' and allow other parties to exist!.... and etc, etc, etc, and so on.

That obviously ends in a dead end and gets us nowhere.

So. Let's redifine the voting system to what it ACTUALLY is. What it ACTUALLY is, is a First Past the Post, or winner-take-all system. What are the issues with First Past the Post?

It leads to two main parties.

Why?

Strategic Voting

Why?

People are voting against the candidate they 10000% do not want to see win. So they instead, vote strategically for the one candidate that has the best chance of defeating the one you absolutely hate, even if you dislike the candidate you voted for.

Now we are at the root cause: We defined what voting system ACTUALLY is. We have defined what the problem of the voting system is. And we have defined the cause for that problem.

Now we can start thinking about a solution to the problem, instead of just simply saying: "We need more political parties!"

Now, I know for a fact everyone in here already knows this. And I have a very high degree of certainty that they know the root cause without me having to go into a deep--seated explanation of "strategic voting," and how it leads to two main parties. The ISSUE is that a large majority of Americans are ill-educated. Or at the very least, are low-information voters. Every time they see someone mistakenly complain about the 'two-party system," all they do is join in on the complaints.

If you are an individual that actually knows better, then it is your responsibility to start calling it what it actually is:

First Past the Post.

You start throwing that phrase around other people who are low-information voters, they're going to stop and wonder: "WTF did you just say?"

Now they are asking a question sparked by a bit of curiosity.

"First Past the Post."

Low information voters, when confronted with a brand-new terminology they've never really heard before, have been trained to use Google to look ◊◊◊◊ up. Now they are reading about "First Past the Post." And they might run into a thing called "Ranked-Choice" voting. That's the grassroots of why three American states as well as the largest of our cities are now ranked-choice. It is also why there are now over 200 (of the 270 electoral votes needed) for the National Popularity Vote Compact to go into effect for all the states that adopt that measure. A legal way to bypass the Electoral College without having to amend the Constitution.

The knowledge of alternative voting methods is spreading, and the more you use the CORRECT terminology, the more it will spread. The more you keep using the INCORRECT terminology of "two party system," the more you perpetuate ignorance.
 
Last edited:
Nihilianth said:
As I said in my previous post, there is a reason why I have continually said in multiple posts that "two party systems" do not exist! They cannot exist!
Click to expand...
If "two-party system" meant "a political system in which exactly two parties exist, as a matter of law", I would agree with you. Any state authoritarian enough to ban (or force into subsidiary positions) all but two political parties is authoritarian enough to ban all but one.

But that's still not what it means.

Once again, we are a "First Past the Post" or "winner-take-all" voting system. Not a 'two party system."
Click to expand...
I'd say we're both. And I think it's useful to keep these descriptions separate, because they describe different things (a voting method and a political situation). You can have a country with a preferential ballot that is nevertheless a two-party system, and you can have a country with plurality voting that is nevertheless a multi-party system.

Just simply saying "it's a two-party system" is meaningless. Great. It's a two party system. How do you fix this? Well, this is the crux of your problem here:
Click to expand...
This is just false. "Two-party system" is a meaningful description of the political situation, and there's no reason to imagine that a description of a problem would immediately suggest a solution to that problem. It's not a problem that we refer to "climate change" rather than exclusively talking about "exceeding the atmosphere's capacity to act as a carbon sink."

Your contention here seems to be that we should complain about FPTP voting, rather than a two-party system, because that will make preferential voting easier to implement. If that's what you're saying, you should abandon the insistence that we don't have a two-party system, because it's false on the standard understanding of "two-party system", and totally unnecessary to the case you're trying to make.
 
Last edited:
No, no, this is important. Maybe I'll make a thread endlessly discussing how manual transmission isn't manual because you just move the gear stick and most of the actual work is done by the gears, or that there's no such thing as instant ramen because it actually takes several minutes to prepare. Or that it's stupid to say you're splitting hairs because no physical hairs are actually being split in two.
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
"Two party system" is not a system. It's just a phrase that counts the number of parties that have a realistic chance of getting elected.
Click to expand...
Exactly right. It isn't a "system." It's the RESULT of an actual system called First Past the Post voting.
Safe-Keeper said:
No, no, this is important. Maybe I'll make a thread endlessly discussing how manual transmission isn't manual because you just move the gear stick and most of the actual work is done by the gears, or that there's no such thing as instant ramen because it actually takes several minutes to prepare. Or that it's stupid to say you're splitting hairs because no physical hairs are actually being split in two.
Click to expand...
This is a red herring. These analogies are comparing apples to oranges here.

You people are trying to describe the result that is two primary parties that have a realistic chance of winning presidential elections as a "system," when it isn't a "system." It's just the result of the system that's actually called "first past the post," or more colloquially called "winner take all."

You are trying to say something like: "car shifting gear because I moved a stick," which is just the result of how you operate a standard transmission vehicle, in place of calling it a "standard transmission," which is what it IS.

And btw, there is a reason that professional drivers (such as myself; I'm a truck driver), and mechanics prefer to call it "standard" as opposed to "manual." The term "standard transmission" is more precise and meaningful.

Like I said in my previous post at the end of it, it's better for those who actually know better, to more precisely call it what it actually is. Not the result. You can then define "two major parties" as the result of FPTP. Then it's easier to segue your way into defining why it is a problem, how it results in the problem, and finally how to fix the problem.
 
mumblethrax said:
If "two-party system" meant "a political system in which exactly two parties exist, as a matter of law", I would agree with you. Any state authoritarian enough to ban (or force into subsidiary positions) all but two political parties is authoritarian enough to ban all but one.
Click to expand...

But if a state authoritarian bans all the other parties by law, then it becomes a "system." We have the term "system of laws." A defined manner of voting issued by law or decree is a "system." Hence: "voting system." It is set down by a system of laws.

Since political parties are not banned, it isn't a "system," as no laws defines a severe restriction on political parties during the voting or political processes. Two major parties is just the result of the particular system of voting called "First Past the Post."

It would be akin to calling pollution a "system" in the same way that you would call the "internal combustion engine" a "system." Pollution is just pollution. It isn't a "system." It's just simply the result of an actual system working in a negative manner such as an internal combustion engine. An ICE is a system. Pollution is not.
mumblethrax said:
Your contention here seems to be that we should complain about FPTP voting, rather than a two-party system, because that will make preferential voting easier to implement. If that's what you're saying, you should abandon the insistence that we don't have a two-party system, because it's false on the standard understanding of "two-party system", and totally unnecessary to the case you're trying to make.
Click to expand...

My contention is to call it what it is. Not what it is not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom