The Two Party System

Remove all ads!

Given the talk in the other AoDA topic on the smearing of Kerry, (see here) I thought this was an appropriate time to bring this up.

It's really a two part question. First of all, why has there never been any long-standing third party in the history of the United States, and was that what the Founders intended?

I have no idea on the latter of those two topics. However, it isn't like we have always been devoid of a third option in the United States. Three major third party groups have existed in the history of the U.S. (By third party, I mean that they either got a canidate in the White House, or at least came close.)

The first example of this was in the early to mid 19th century with the formation of the Whig Party, which ostensibly was a group of Andrew Jackson haters. The Whigs were around for about 30 years, and actually got two of their people in the White House (Harrison and Taylor). In a stroke of irony, both of their elected presidents died while in office, with Harrison only lasting a few months, after catching pnemonia on the day of his inauguration. However, with the death of Andrew Jackson, so died the party.

The other two examples come from the early 20th century. First there was the Bull-Moose party founded by Teddy Rosevelt. And also, contemporaneous to this was the Progressive Party. Teddy Rosevelt formed the Bull-Moose Party when he attempted to run for President again, after his initial stint of completing a partial term and then winning a full term of his own. While Teddy Rosevelt died before being given the opportunity to be re-elected, the Bull-Moose Party is the basis of the modern GOP today, and certainly therefore, the most successful of all start-up third parties.

The problem of course being, is that the GOP replaced one of the then-existing parties. (As a side note, the parties were kind of reversed back then, with the "Republicans" being the more liberal party, and are now the present day Democrats, whereas the "Democrats" were the more conservative party that were replaced by the GOP during this time.) (As a side note to the side note, this switch of political parties also explains why Lincoln, and extremely liberal president for his time, was elected as a Republican - because the then-Republican party became the current Democrat party.)

All of this is water under the bridge at this point, but why has it worked this way, and perhaps more importantly, what would our Founding Fathers have to say about this?

[ August 26, 2004, 21:04: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

A two party-sytem is typical for most anglo-saxon countries, as they usually keep the typical British majority-voting system. A two-party system is a necessary and intented result of a majority voting system. More than two parties in the long term require a proportional voting system. And Mister Madison was aware of that.

 

You should be allowed to change the system if you want. In New Zealand, we didn't like our old two party first past the post system so we had a public referendum and voted to change to a Mixed Member Proportional representation system. Whilst proportional representation does have its flaws (such as probably giving a little bit too much power to minor parties) it does mean that politicians have to work together it more to get decisions made and it avoids the situation you have in the USA where the country is held to ransom by having to choose between two zillionaires that nobody likes. It's hardly a democracy when you can't actually vote for somebody that you want to have as your leader.

 

If we grant that in a democracy, the majority of 50.1% generally rules; and, if we further grant that it is the rare issue that the majority knows or even cares about, since most people (legitimately) are interested in those issues that they understand and that touch on their lives; and that therefore most single-issues are strongly favored or opposed by minorities, neither of whom can form decisive majorities by ideology alone; then we have two ways of organizing that 50.1%.

The multi-party system lets everyone carefully customize small parties that closely align with voter preferences, often along single issues or creative ideologies. You can have your environmental party, your pro-business party, your pro- and anti-abortion parties, etc. etc. So when the time comes to organize that 50.1%, because each party is a minority, the different parties have to logroll together to make transitory coalitions.

In the two-party system, all of that logrolling and coalition-building is done before the election. Instead of carefully-focused small parties, you end up with two big-tent parties, and it's the rare voter that agrees with everything a party stands for.

I don't know that either system is "better" than the other. Both are unstable -- sure, Italy and Israel look unstable because their governments are constantly falling apart, but the Republicans and Democrats are continually consumed by infighting themselves.

But once a two-party system develops, it's very difficult to expand it to the multi-party level. Multi-party systems thrive because little parties have to build coalitions to construct majorities. If one big-tent party is already large enough to make a majority or near-majority, then the little parties don't get that coalition-building advantage. Instead, they're better off investing votes and cash in the big-tent party they're most comfortable with. It only works if the system is rigged to favor smaller parties (like in New Zealand) - not necessarily a bad thing, but not necessarily a good thing either.

So it's not quite as bad as this:

There was plenty of opportunity for party members to pick different candidates, thanks to the party primary system. Kerry was picked because, logically, he was seen as both electable and palatable to Democratic factions. That's not any different from the way a prime minister would've been picked by a coalition of small parties. The Democrats were free to pick Dean or Nader or anyone they liked, but the majority decided on Kerry. Broad and bland is the price you pay for reconciling competing factions -- whether in a multitude of small single-issue parties or under a faction-ridden big-tent.

 

Very true. And in a place like the USA which is so big and has so many more factions to appease, that is probably what you are going to get. That system does have the big advantage of creating some level of stability as extreme views (both good and bad ones) are crushed by the power of the committees.

 

@Aldeth

In order to answer your first question, I'd have to know who and when. If we're talking at the time period of the Declaration and the writing of the Constitution, I seems political parties weren't really considered that important a topic. There were no parties when Washington was elected. People just picked the man.

However, later on, parties did start under two of the founding fathers, Jefferson and Hamilton. It was probably because these two parties were founded on two-sided issues.

Third parties don't last very long frequently because they are focused on one issue. If you already have a party that covers that issue in a blanket, why bother voting for another party that covers the same position on the same issue?

Also, many Americans, at least in the past few decades, have a motivation that prevents them from voting for third parties: tradition. If my father voted for Party X and his father voted for Party X, etc., I will probably vote for Party X. Part of that is honoring the family vote, I guess, and the other part relates to the values given to the next generation.

I would think that a multiple party system would produce a wider variety of executives and more accurate representation in the legislature, although, since I haven't lived under it, I can't really say. It seems that, in a multi-party system, coalitions have to work out agreements. So, say the Party Y and the Party Z need to form a coalition to win. Then Party Y gets to have the executive be from Party Y the first term, then Party Z the next. The more accurate representation in the legislature comes from the idea of voting for a more limited party, with more specific ideas on issues.

Could people from countries with multi-party systems offer input?

 

I live in a country with a multi-party system. You have to remember that a coalition government does not arise every time. Often, there will be one major party that gets sufficient seats in parliament to be able to govern by themselves. When the main party does not get enough seats to govern by themselves then they have to look at another party to provide them with support. They will usually then draw up a coalition agreement that sets out the terms by which the coalition partners will operate. This will be something along the lines of: "We, the Green Party, will vote with you, the Labour party, on all issues, so long as you maintain New Zealand's nuclear-free policy and impose a carbon tax." The Green Party might get a few token members of parliament into cabinet positions as well.

I believe that this system works extremely well. The only downside I can see is that it might give the minor parties too much power. However, this is mitigated by the fact that there are several minor parties to choose from so if one of them gets too demanding then the major party would form a government with a different one instead.

 

Sweden have been ruled by minority governments for a long time now with a few exceptions. This last period the social democrats have governed with less than 40% of the popular vote and they have sucked up to both the right and the left to get their bills through parliment. Something similar have been the case for most of Sweden's democratic history except for the times a few decades back when the Social democrats managed to get own majority. They are traditionally supported by the communists but lately they have also needed the support of one other smaller party and it has most often been the Greens. So basically Sweden have had one major party a la the US historically and then many small ones. The opposition consists of the liberal peoples party, the conservative/liberal Moderates, the conservative/christian Christdemocrats and the liberal/green/rural party the Centrists. These have managed to patch together a coalition a few times to govern and at times it has worked and at other times like once in the seventies it fell apart with a blast due to one issue (nuclear power).

Nowadays there are currents for merging the non-socialistic parties into one big one and then we are pretty much where the US are. I do not think that is likely though, the only thing those parties have in common is pretty much that they are not the social democrats.

 

I wasn't talking currently, obviously. I mean, today the major parties have so much power, and so much money, that a third party with any substantial power would be next to impossible to create. I'm talking about times past. If you want specific dates, say 100 years ago, and 200 years ago. (Although technically 100 years ago would take us to a point in time just before the creation of a significant third party.) As for the who, well that depends directly on the when, doesn't it?

I will further agree that the Declaration and the Constitution weren't written with the idea of political parties in mind. However, parties started forming extremely early on in the political process, and the vast majority of founders were still alive at this time, so they certainly saw it, and probably had opinions on it.

 

This is certainly very true; no one but Washington could have been the first president. The same is true for Adams to a lesser extent, as second president. Like Washington he was elected on the strength of his revolutionary creditials, and his service to his country.

Nevertheless, he refused to align himself with either of the parties that were forming around Hamilton and Jefferson. They were not really "parties" in the modern sense, but they represented two different directions for the founding of the country.

I think it is to Adams' credit that he chose to be independent of the political factions that were forming. He was probably wise to keep the still fragile and independent country out of a disastrous war between Britain and France. Like Washington, he became a marginal Federalist near the end of his politcal career, but it really was not by choice. Although to his discredit he was jealous of Washington, suspicious of Jefferson and he detested Hamilton. Hence, he really had no powerful political allies.

I mention Adams for two reasons: First, DMC touched on him breifly in another thread, and it got me thinking about the problems Adams faced attempting to remain an "independent." Second, because the price Adams paid is instructive - anyone who attempts to be independent pays a high price for the luxury of being his own man, so to speak. It seems incredible that anyone who loved liberty as much as Adams did could become associated with the tyrannical Sedition and Alien Acts. Yet, this is exactly what happened to him near the end of is political life, as he tried to maneuver through the incediary atmosphere of partisan politics that prevaded the titanic struggle between Hamilton and Jefferson. He left office in humiliation, being bitterly defeated by Jefferson, and having, in some quarters, the reputation of a tyrant who had lost his love for Revolutinary principles. Nothing could have been more painful and bitter for Adams.

Also, although the architects of the Constitution did not have to contend with political parties at the time, they knew that the likelihood of party politics would become a reality. Throughout the 1700s Europe had already seen its share of party politics, especially England. Thus, they suspected that party politics would have a role to play in the balance of power in a constitutional government.

[ August 30, 2004, 06:36: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Speaking from the Australian experience, I don't think that having a two-party system (by Aldeth's definition) is necessarily a bad thing. As Harbourboy said, having a multi-party system doesn't require the third and fourth parties to be effective or serious contenders for government. So long as they exist as a check on power (or better, if they hold the balance of power) within the Lower or Upper House of Parliament, they can exert enough of an influence to make sure that other interests are at least put forward, if not entirely met. Does this give too much power to minor parties? I don't think so - it requires any party to get another's support before attempting to pass legislation, which means that there will seldom be unilateral power to make law at any level in Australia.