Split Thread Is the US a two party state

[TragicMonkey]

If it technically is a multi-party state, it functionally has only two parties. When was the last time anybody but a Republican, Democrat, or the occasional Independent (which is not a party) held a seat in either the Senate or the House?

America is a multi-party state in the same way a roulette wheel has more than two colors on it.

 

[arthwollipot]

Let's be clear - Proportional Representation is a far better system of voting than the mess America has right now. What @Opcode well-poisoningly brands as "deadlocked, ineffectual, bureaucratic government" is a feature, not a bug. Many countries, including my own, have PR, and while our government is far from perfect, it is also far from deadlocked and ineffectual. You see, with PR, parties are forced to negotiate with each other and form coalitions in order to get things done. This does not lead to deadlock, this leads to compromise and cooperation, and in the end overall better governance. America's two parties have no reason to cooperate, which leads to things like the government shutting down for six weeks in a high-stakes game of Chicken with people's lives and livelihoods riding on who flinches first.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

America is a multi-party state in the same way a roulette wheel has more than two colors on it.

Now now, there is a quite realistic chance you end up on black on a roulette. Any party other then GOP/Dems getting any political power in the US is nowhere near those odds.

 

[arthwollipot]

Now now, there is a quite realistic chance you end up on black on a roulette. Any party other then GOP/Dems getting any political power in the US is nowhere near those odds.

There's almost as much chance as a Green Party candidate getting elected as there is on landing on green on a roulette wheel.

 

[steenkh]

America's two parties have no reason to cooperate, which leads to things like the government shutting down for six weeks

There is nothing in the two-party system that inevitably leads to government shutdowns, because it is just the effect of a normal law that they have passed at some point. They could also have made the law to let the government continue paying wages, and then the deadlock could continue forever, in the same way that Belgium can work without government for years.

But the adversarial effect of the two-party system has made somebody think that it would be a marvellous idea to put the thumb-screws on the opposition by stopping paying wages until the other side blinks.

 

[Nihilianth]

You're missing the point. The whole point of having different terms is to be able to differentiate between things. It's useful to have a term for a country where only two parties have a chance of winnning. We call that a two-party system. You could quibble and say that actually there's far more parties in both a one- and two-party country (like russia and the USA, respectively), but then the whole point of having the terms in the first place disappears.

In the end, what matters is the purpose and common usage of terms, not how technically correct they are. It's like how we can refer to wind turbines as windmills even though they don't mill anything --English is full of words that aren't technically correct or that have meanings that have changed over time to mean something completely different. Like 'to decimate': Some people bristle over using that word to mean anything else than the Roman practice of killing every 10th person in a Roman legion, but whether they like it or not, the meaning of words will always be changing.

Again, you haven't even addressed my full argument. If people are voting for the other parties, then they absolutely 100% do exist. Well over a million voters have voted for more than 2 candidates. I'll copy-paste my full argument here, since it is conveniently being ignored:

There are quite literally at least 50 different political parties in the United States. A very simple Google search will reveal that to be the case. I very literally named a handful of them. Two minor parties always get about a half a percentage of the vote in presidential elections, with the Libertarian Party that has 700,000 registered voters, and 650,000 votes at the last presidential election. The Green Party with 261,000 registered voters, and 813,000 votes in the last presidential election. The Constitution Party came in 3rd place of the minors, with 155,000 registered, and 54,000 voters.

These are enough voters for these parties to prevent either of the major candidates from obtaining 50% of the vote. It would mathematically be impossible for one candidate to have 47%, and the other to have 46% if other parties and their candidates were not present, and if people were not voting for them.

Again, it is just a simple matter of states passing a ranked-choice ballot. A lot of major cities have, such as NYC, and LA (that amounts to about 20 million in population right there alone!) And with the entire states of Maine, Alaska, and Hawaii for state-wide elections.

The three minor parties I mentioned in this post are pretty healthy. Especially the Libertarian and Green Parties. They've gained a lot of new traction, since people in three entire states and many large cities can actually now vote for them in local and state elections without detracting from "their side" in those elections. In the three states mentioned; Maine, Alaska, and Hawaii, they can vote like that in state-wide elections. This gives a crap load of people.... literally millions of voters....more incentive to vote for one of the minor party candidates in presidential elections.

The next step is for states to start instituting the rank-choice for presidential ballots. It probably is not too far off, as younger progressives like Mamdani in NYC, are moving up the ranks of the Democratic Party. If Mamdani can become governor of NY in the 2030s, and if NYC voters heavily vote in favor of progressive candidates to their state chamber, then there's a really good chance that NY could join Maine, Alaska, and Hawaii to pass ranked-choice for state-wide elections and possibly move onto doing so for presidential ballots.

 

[wareyin]

You still haven't even addressed my full argument. I am not going to go about repeating myself.

Your full argument appears to be that if we changed the voting system that it would be different and that all of these other parties would...still get less than 1% of the vote and not matter?

There is no reason to address an argument that requires we change our current system for you to be correct.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Again, you haven't even addressed my full argument. If people are voting for the other parties, then they absolutely 100% do exist. Well over a million voters have voted for more than 2 candidates

Do you think anyone in this thread is denying that other parties technically exist?

 

[wareyin]

Again, you haven't even addressed my full argument. If people are voting for the other parties, then they absolutely 100% do exist. Well over a million voters have voted for more than 2 candidates. I'll copy-paste my full argument here, since it is conveniently being ignored:

"Well over a million voters" you are counting every vote for someone other than the 2 parties over how many years to get that number? How many of those votes have been the same numbskull that thinks 'this time the greens will definitely win!'?
edited: All of the votes for a candidate other than Trump or Harris combined did actually amount to just under 3 million. All of them combined got less than 4% of the votes for the losing candidate. All of them combined only got 1.9% of the total votes cast. No one party approached one percent.

There are quite literally at least 50 different political parties in the United States. A very simple Google search will reveal that to be the case. I very literally named a handful of them. Two minor parties always get about a half a percentage of the vote in presidential elections, with the Libertarian Party that has 700,000 registered voters, and 650,000 votes at the last presidential election. The Green Party with 261,000 registered voters, and 813,000 votes in the last presidential election. The Constitution Party came in 3rd place of the minors, with 155,000 registered, and 54,000 voters.

These are enough voters for these parties to prevent either of the major candidates from obtaining 50% of the vote. It would mathematically be impossible for one candidate to have 47%, and the other to have 46% if other parties and their candidates were not present, and if people were not voting for them.

I already addressed this. In the last election neither of the major candidates got 50% of the vote. So what? This does not make a party with *checks notes* 54,000 voters spread out over the us able to affect an election in which the major candidates pulled in over 152,000,000 votes.

Again, it is just a simple matter of states passing a ranked-choice ballot. A lot of major cities have, such as NYC, and LA (that amounts to about 20 million in population right there alone!) And with the entire states of Maine, Alaska, and Hawaii for state-wide elections.

If we have to change the way the system works for your claim about the system as it is now to be accurate, then your claim is not accurate now.

The three minor parties I mentioned in this post are pretty healthy. Especially the Libertarian and Green Parties. They've gained a lot of new traction, since people in three entire states and many large cities can actually now vote for them in local and state elections without detracting from "their side" in those elections. In the three states mentioned; Maine, Alaska, and Hawaii, they can vote like that in state-wide elections. This gives a crap load of people.... literally millions of voters....more incentive to vote for one of the minor party candidates in presidential elections.

Why does that give anyone an incentive to throw away their vote on a candidate that they know for a certainty, 100%, will not win?

The next step is for states to start instituting the rank-choice for presidential ballots. It probably is not too far off, as younger progressives like Mamdani in NYC, are moving up the ranks of the Democratic Party. If Mamdani can become governor of NY in the 2030s, and if NYC voters heavily vote in favor of progressive candidates to their state chamber, then there's a really good chance that NY could join Maine, Alaska, and Hawaii to pass ranked-choice for state-wide elections and possibly move onto doing so for presidential ballots.

And again, if the system has to change for your description of the system to be correct, then your description of the system as it is now is clearly not correct.

 

[Nihilianth]

Your full argument appears to be that if we changed the voting system that it would be different and that all of these other parties would...still get less than 1% of the vote and not matter?

There is no reason to address an argument that requires we change our current system for you to be correct.

*SIGH*

I have no idea why so many on this forum are so....obtuse.

No. That clearly is NOT what I said.

 

[Nihilianth]

Do you think anyone in this thread is denying that other parties technically exist?

They DEFINITELY exist. Well over a million people vote for them in presidential elections.

 

[I Am The Scum]

They DEFINITELY exist. Well over a million people vote for them in presidential elections.

Read my question again. I'm not asking if you think they exist. I'm asking if you think anyone in this thread is denying that they technically exist.

 

[Nihilianth]

"Well over a million voters" you are counting every vote for someone other than the 2 parties over how many years to get that number? How many of those votes have been the same numbskull that thinks 'this time the greens will definitely win!'?
edited: All of the votes for a candidate other than Trump or Harris combined did actually amount to just under 3 million. All of them combined got less than 4% of the votes for the losing candidate. All of them combined only got 1.9% of the total votes cast. No one party approached one percent.

I already addressed this. In the last election neither of the major candidates got 50% of the vote. So what? This does not make a party with *checks notes* 54,000 voters spread out over the us able to affect an election in which the major candidates pulled in over 152,000,000 votes.

If we have to change the way the system works for your claim about the system as it is now to be accurate, then your claim is not accurate now.

Why does that give anyone an incentive to throw away their vote on a candidate that they know for a certainty, 100%, will not win?

And again, if the system has to change for your description of the system to be correct, then your description of the system as it is now is clearly not correct.

I am TELLING YOU, we have a FIRST PAST THE POST SYSTEM. NOT a "Two-Party" system. I don't know how this is so hard. There is no such thing as a "two-party system." You either have a single party like the fascists and communists have run because all other parties were outlawed. Or you have multiple parties because they are NOT outlawed.

If we change the system to a ranked choice, as I have mentioned on multiple occasions, that would enable people to vote for other party candidates, rather than just for one. The fact that other parties 100% absolutely undeniably DO exist, means there would already be parties in place to do just that.

And also, you people are ignoring the fact that other parties DO win elections. Look at Bernie Sanders, winning pretty much every single election for decades on end. And he managed to do significantly well against Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Primary. He's not the only one to have been elected to the United States Congress as an Indy. Also, before Lincoln, there were other parties that definitely have won the presidential election.

 

[Nihilianth]

Read my question again. I'm not asking if you think they exist. I'm asking if you think anyone in this thread is denying that they technically exist.

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.")

 

[wareyin]

I am TELLING YOU, we have a FIRST PAST THE POST SYSTEM. NOT a "Two-Party" system. I don't know how this is so hard. There is no such thing as a "two-party system." You either have a single party like the fascists and communists have run because all other parties were outlawed. Or you have multiple parties because they are NOT outlawed.

If we change the system to a ranked choice, as I have mentioned on multiple occasions, that would enable people to vote for other party candidates, rather than just for one. The fact that other parties 100% absolutely undeniably DO exist, means there would already be parties in place to do just that.

And also, you people are ignoring the fact that other parties DO win elections. Look at Bernie Sanders, winning pretty much every single election for decades on end. And he managed to do significantly well against Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Primary. He's not the only one to have been elected to the United States Congress as an Indy. Also, before Lincoln, there were other parties that definitely have won the presidential election.

You are still saying that we need to change the system to ranked choice for your description to be accurate, and somehow failing to understand that this means your description is not accurate now.

Yes, Bernie Sanders, who famously joined the Democratic Party to run for President, twice. He totally proves your point that other parties have a shot.

 

[3point14]

If we change the system to a ranked choice...

...it wouldn't be a two party system?

 

[Nihilianth]

You are still saying that we need to change the system to ranked choice for your description to be accurate, and somehow failing to understand that this means your description is not accurate now.

Yes, Bernie Sanders, who famously joined the Democratic Party to run for President, twice. He totally proves your point that other parties have a shot.

Jesus Effin' Christ.

 

[Nihilianth]

...it wouldn't be a two party system?

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?

 

[wareyin]

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.")

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!

 

[wareyin]

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?

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