Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - The case for third party alternatives in the US

loquitur · 12-21-2006, 08:54 AM

Historically, third parties have tended not to last in the US. They have generally been personality-driven (TR with Bull Moose, Wallace in '68, Perot in '92) rather than driven by policies or ideas. I believe the reasons are structural. The US isn't a parliamentary system, which means that we are voting for individuals and have the ability to choose divided government if we like. I believe the US's governmental structures, with many different levels of government, winner-take-all elections and (with the exception of the Presidency) a total lack of national voting, contributes to having a two-party system, with each party being a relatively big tent. [hey, no scoffing! it's true!]

This has advantages and disadvantages. The US's approach creates remarkable stability. The oldest political party in the world is the US Democratic party, which traces its origins back to Jefferson, and ultimately to the anti-federalists at the time of the founding. The Republican party is now over 150 years old, and were it not for the fact that the Whig party fell apart over slavery in the early 1850s (the Southern Whigs dropped out and the Northern Whigs became Republicans, on an anti-slavery free-labor free-market platform), we'd see the continuity from the Whigs to the Republicans. Now contrast this to the upheavals in France (now on its fifth republic, third since WWII), Italy (how many governments since WWII?), or Israel (where I believe no government has finished its term intact since the state was founded). Think of the hysteria after the last French election, when LePen came in second and qualified for a runoff with only 17% of the vote because the rest of the electorate fractured among 16 parties.

Having lots of parties is a recipe for political gridlock and instability - plus, it empowers the extremists. At least in the US we have two big-tent parties where at least people speak the same language and understand each other even if they disagree. Introduce more parties and you'll see a lot more single-issue politics, less inclination to compromise, and a lot more under-the-table political horse trading.

Israel, for example, can't put stable governments together because something like 15 parties win seats. The biggest coalition partners have to "buy" enough seats from small parties to get a majority, and the small parties invariably have narrow agendas and big demands for patronage. That's what life looks like in a multiparty system. (The counter-example is the UK, which has had 3 parties for a while, but that seems to be the exception that proves the rule. And in recent decades the govt has always been Labour or Tories anyway).

Ultimately what we have in the US has evolved the way it has because it works, and has been proven to work quite well. It's not perfect, but what is?

12-21-2006, 08:54 AM	#4 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Historically, third parties have tended not to last in the US. They have generally been personality-driven (TR with Bull Moose, Wallace in '68, Perot in '92) rather than driven by policies or ideas. I believe the reasons are structural. The US isn't a parliamentary system, which means that we are voting for individuals and have the ability to choose divided government if we like. I believe the US's governmental structures, with many different levels of government, winner-take-all elections and (with the exception of the Presidency) a total lack of national voting, contributes to having a two-party system, with each party being a relatively big tent. [hey, no scoffing! it's true!] This has advantages and disadvantages. The US's approach creates remarkable stability. The oldest political party in the world is the US Democratic party, which traces its origins back to Jefferson, and ultimately to the anti-federalists at the time of the founding. The Republican party is now over 150 years old, and were it not for the fact that the Whig party fell apart over slavery in the early 1850s (the Southern Whigs dropped out and the Northern Whigs became Republicans, on an anti-slavery free-labor free-market platform), we'd see the continuity from the Whigs to the Republicans. Now contrast this to the upheavals in France (now on its fifth republic, third since WWII), Italy (how many governments since WWII?), or Israel (where I believe no government has finished its term intact since the state was founded). Think of the hysteria after the last French election, when LePen came in second and qualified for a runoff with only 17% of the vote because the rest of the electorate fractured among 16 parties. Having lots of parties is a recipe for political gridlock and instability - plus, it empowers the extremists. At least in the US we have two big-tent parties where at least people speak the same language and understand each other even if they disagree. Introduce more parties and you'll see a lot more single-issue politics, less inclination to compromise, and a lot more under-the-table political horse trading. Israel, for example, can't put stable governments together because something like 15 parties win seats. The biggest coalition partners have to "buy" enough seats from small parties to get a majority, and the small parties invariably have narrow agendas and big demands for patronage. That's what life looks like in a multiparty system. (The counter-example is the UK, which has had 3 parties for a while, but that seems to be the exception that proves the rule. And in recent decades the govt has always been Labour or Tories anyway). Ultimately what we have in the US has evolved the way it has because it works, and has been proven to work quite well. It's not perfect, but what is?