Where in the Constitution does it say we can only have 2 political parties? AND why do we allow

[diabeticman]

only the Democratic and Republican (which I honestly believe will become the Tea Party in a few elections)


And I'm not trying to be some radical jerk or something but let's look at the political landscape. You have moderates from the Republican party and Democratic party You have conservatives and liberal/progressives --like my wife. She is registered as a independent right now because she right now feels the Democratic party isn't as progressive as it should be. But really other than Bernie Sanders who else in the congress is a party other than a D or an R?

I heard a friend of ours saying that you can only be a Republic ian or Democratic because those two parties are in the Constitution. When My wife proved to her that wasn't true that other parties existed before those two parties the friend insisted that the Constitution only allows a 2 party system.

Other countries have more than the parties serving their needs in other countries and they are able to function and pass laws to serve the country as a whole.

Wouldn't one see more Bi- or Tri- Partisanship more than the B.S. we see in congress today?

[Egalitarian Thug]

1. You're right, it doesn't. The owners have decided that two teams are sufficient to

maintain the illusion of choice.

[KurtNYC]

16. and the media helps by claiming that every election is "too close to call"

I look at Mitt Romney and think in the year when the GOP wanted to run against Obamacare, they put up the guy who invented it as their candidate. It's a pretty thin illusion at this point. Reminds me of a "basketball game" between the Harlem Globetrotters and the Washington Generals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Generals

[brooklynite]

2. So, create one that's viable...

The reality is you have to start at the local level: town councils and school boards, and build up your influence and you candidate pool. The last truly successful effort was the Populist Party in the 1880's. Today, too many people think that all you need is a viable Presidential candidate.

[PETRUS]

3. Structure

Single member district representation with first past the post, winner take all elections tends to produce two dominant parties. That's just the way it is. If you want a multi party system you need proportional representation and cascading elections or instant run offs or something.

[MineralMan]

4. The two party system is based on our emphasis on

majority democracy in general. Although many people are elected by a plurality of votes, our representative republic is based on majority democracy.

That's the reason. There's nothing in the Constitution about political parties that limits them to two. Nothing. It is what has happened due to how we elect people.

The history of third and other parties in the US is dismal. While they can be spoilers for one of the two major parties, they never have much, if any, representation in actual government, except on an occasional breakout, like the moron independent, Jesse Ventura, becoming Governor of Minnesota for a single term.

[MNBrewer]

17. Ventura was better than Pawlenty!

[MineralMan]

27. Perhaps. I wasn't here during his term.

That's not the point, though. He was an Independent, and it's very rare for a third-party candidate to win such races. He is an exception.

[WI_DEM]

5. There aren't only two political parties--there are several--but so far none of them

have shown an ability to win.

[Spider Jerusalem]

6. It doesn't, as such.

first-past-the-post voting invariably lead to political systems with two dominant parties. If you want more than two major parties? Amend the Constitution to replace the current electoral system with proportional representation (in which all parties that reach a certain threshold percentage of votes--usually 5%-- receive an equivalent number of seats). This would have the result of smaller parties becoming viable, although in practice the coalitions created by those smaller parties would probably look similar to the current Republican and Democratic parties (which are really coalitions of convenience, on both sides).

[1-Old-Man]

7. I would suggest that the greater the size of the electorate the more a binary choice is needed

It seems to me that the more people that participate in a decision the more it requires that the decision be defined within strict limits and the choices become binary. Two people or ten can get together to discuss a problem and come up with three or four possible solutions and then reasonably decide which one or combination of them to proceed with. But when the number of people grows into the millions the the choices presented have to be limited or chaos will follow.

So that's what I see as the reason that we only have two Parties, because in the end all national choices have to be broken down to yes or no, one or zero, up or down, left or right.

Make sense?

[warrprayer]

8. as another poster put it....

[hfojvt]

9. one reason is basic math

consider a five party system.

with
A - ultra liberal party
B - liberal party
C - moderate party
D - conservative party
E - ultra conservative party

Now you have a possible election result with
E - 22%, D - 17%, C - 21%, B - 20%, A - 20%

I happen to think that is messed up. You just had 78% of the voters vote for NOT E, and yet E wins with 22% of the vote. How is that system following "the will of the people"?

The only way to get the presumed will of the people is for a candidate to get over 50% of the vote. So if we had multiple parties, we really would have to change the election system.

But even then, how would things work in Congress. Here's the Senate now, divided up in FOUR parties 27 teabaggers, 20 Republicans, 46 Corporate Democrats, and 7 socialists. In order to pass anything with a simple majority, the socialists are going to have to caucus with the Corporate Democrats. In order to block anything, the Republicans are going to have to caucus with the teabaggers. So you are right back to a defacto two party system.

And finally consider elections. The candidate problem. In many elections already, we don't even have TWO parties. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002798703 "In 41 of 125 House seats, one party is running unopposed, including 6 where the Democrat is running unopposed."

In HALF of Kansas Congressional races, there was only ONE candidate and ONE party, and in 1/3 of Kansas legislative races there was only ONE candidate - or ONE party. Do you think four parties are going to be able to find candidates in very many races? Then consider the media. Is the newspaper gonna devote two full pages to each race? In my own races, for Congress and County Treasurer, the media was very limited and limiting. One said they did not want to give me free publicity, then gave me a paper which I opened up to find a picture of the Republican running for Senate. Others basically did a front page blurb where they only included - a picture, age, location, current job. They gave no space for any discussion of issues, much less a serious and informative discussion.

For the County Treasurer's race, the paper did a feature on each one of those races. They asked 5 questions and they limited your answer to just 60 words. (which they said would be strictly enforced, go past 60 and they will chop the extra words off. Then in print, I noticed my opponent often went 75 words, unless I don't know how to count words (for example though, does the "don't" that I just used, count as ONE word or TWO?)) You cannot say very much in just 60 words.

Then consider a practical matter - a candidate forum. Again, in many forums, they already limit you to two minutes of speaking. Some might be able to pack a Gettysburg address into two minutes, but generally two minutes is not much more than time enough to say "vote for me, my opponent sucks". But suppose you have five candidates and you give them each five minutes to speak. So candidate A speaks for five minutes, candidate B speaks for five minutes, candidate C speaks for five minutes, candidate D speaks for five minutes, and then the County Coronor needs to come in because the whole audience just died of boredom. Further, you now have twenty minutes of speeches and then what, you have questions and allow two minute answers? This forum is getting long - forty minutes for just an introductory speech and two questions. And that's just for ONE contest. In our county alone, you would have - two state senate races, 3 state legislative races, Congress, two county commission races, County Clerk, County treasurer, County sheriff, County Attorney, and another County office that I cannot remember (mostly because she never has an opponent (and she's a Democrat in a Republican County)).

Currently, because we have two candidates in each race, those races can be combined in just three forums. Get more candidates and you would need more forums. Forums which most voters are not gonna go to.

So, in multiple ways, for multiple reasons, I do not see multiple parties as a viable alternative to two. And certainly not some kind of panaceia or instant solution to the fact that NEITHER of our two parties is bothering to represent the majority of the people at the national level.

[Sheepshank]

14. Interesting...I've thought the same thing as your first two paragraphs

A year or so ago, there was an article about a middle eastern country that had 15 parties on the ballot. My first thought was that at any given time it would be a lucky thing if 15% of the nation got the party they voted for. That's a whole lotta discontented angry losers feeling they are not being represented.

As for the op...i didn't realize that there was some argument regarding the Constitution and multiple parties. Is there a controversy brewing somewhere?

[hfojvt]

22. some here are upset that the Democrats have been bought by the upper class

and they are convinced that Nader or some other 3rd party is the only answer. Or that a multiple party system would be better than the two party system.

It could be, if only the teabaggers would form their own party - and allow Democrats to win almost everything.

But many here seem to want the opposite, for Progressives to form their own party - allowing Republicans to win almost everything.

[Capt. Obvious]

25. If that's your fear - have a run-off

[hfojvt]

30. and that, like I said

would be a change to our election system in most states. And elections cost money too as there are about four workers in each precinct working a twelve hour day to run the polls. Even as a poll watcher working half the day, it seemed like a long day that started way too early in the morning (my "day" job is 2nd shift so 6 in the morning is more like "when I get home" than "when I wake up&quot .

And run off elections do not change the other practical matters of "getting information to the voters".

[Capt. Obvious]

31. How do you feel about Bill Clinton's two terms?

Were those elections the will of the people?

[hfojvt]

36. I didn't vote for him - either time

but I always felt that was a tough call. To me all three of those candidates were conservative. So while Perot voters did NOT vote for Clinton, I sorta felt that if Perot was not on the ballot that 50% or more of them would have.

While Clinton was better than I thought, in some ways (in other ways he was worse than I thought) and Bush Sr. was worse than I thought in some ways, it is still possible that the country would have been better off if Clinton had lost in 1992. Then maybe the DLC would not have taken control of the Democratic Party. Maybe we would still have a Democratic Party instead of just a Republican-lite Party. Maybe Republicans would not have taken control of the House in 1994 and held that for 12 years. Maybe we would not be facing the imminent threat of Hillary 2016. It's hard to tell.

[Capt. Obvious]

37. Were those elections the will of the people though?

Since he didn't break 50% both times.

[hfojvt]

39. they might not have been

and maybe the people reacted in 1994.

I am pretty sure that the country would have been better off without Perot in that 1992 contest. He's the one who seemingly made the national conversation all about the deficit.

[KittyWampus]

35. Thanks for taking the time to write such a well thought out response

It's why I still visit DU.

[hfojvt]

40. thanks, I was afraid many readers would die of boredom halfway through

You can see though why it is tough for me to limit myself to just 60 words or two minutes.

I think DU has lost some of its longer writers. I mean H2Oman is not around much (or I just don't see him because DU3 does not have the "buddy list" that DU2 did. TimeforChange is gone. And SapphireBlue passed away. Those people would write long, thoughtful and informative OPs. The PlaidAdder does not write here any more either. Maybe it is hard to keep writing when you either get ignored or have dozens of people swarming you with poisonous darts. (one line drive by snark). Skinner used to weigh in with thoughtful pieces too.

Or I could be seeing the past with rose colored glasses.

[KittyWampus]

44. it's a joy to read anything that is composed- even when I disagree. And your phrasing

one line drive-by snark is pretty accurate. I am guilty of it to.

[Nye Bevan]

10. I'm guessing that your friend is not a constitutional scholar.

And doesn't she remember Ross Perot?

[hfojvt]

33. Ross Perot was a long, long time ago

He last ran in 1996 - 17 years ago.

The blink of an eye to an old fart like me, but some people are young. Much younger, damn them, and always walking on my grass too!!

I remember when I was teaching economics in 1989, and I was talking about Reaganomics, and thinking "well this is recent history, these students are gonna remember the elections of 1980." and then I realized that these college students were only 18, 19 or 20 years old. Not THAT much younger than my 26, but in the life of a child, 6 years is huge. The elections of 1980 were happening when they were 10, 11 or 12 years old. Now geek like me, I was paying some attention to the election of 1972 when I was only 10, but most ten, eleven and twelve year olds are not paying that much attention to politics.

Another example is Bob Dole. When he ran for President in 1996, I thought EVERYBODY would remember him as the VEEP candidate from 1976, when I was only 14. But in that case, even most adults could not seem to remember 20 years ago.

[Nye Bevan]

41. OK. Now I feel old. (nt)

[cali]

11. It's not that you can't have a third party, it's that our system makes it hard

Angus King, btw is an independent- ME.

the only viable third party in the nation that regularly elects folks to the statehouse is the Vermont Progressive Party.

[taught_me_patience]

12. Winner-take-all system

a vote for a third party is a usually a vote for the opposition. Can't take that chance.

[MNBrewer]

18. what happens when both major parties are effectively "the opposition"

in regards to a lot of issues.

[LanternWaste]

13. My experience with 3rd parties resulted in a lot of simple idiots blaming...

My experience with 3rd parties resulted in a lot of simple-minded idiots blaming my vote in TX for Bush's election in 2000.

[hfojvt]

24. nobody blames Nader voters in Texas

but Nader in general and Nader-voters in general, are to blame. Because most Nader voters were not from Texas or Kansas or Wyoming - states where it would not matter. In fact, Nader got zero votes in South Dakota, Oklahoma and North Carolina - states where it would not have mattered. Presumably he failed to get on the ballot. Maybe he should have worked harder to get on the ballot in Oklahoma instead of campaigning in places like Florida, Wisconsin and Iowa.

[LanternWaste]

43. It is rather easy to find blame, not in a system, but rather in a person for casting votes

"but Nader in general and Nader-voters in general, are to blame..."

It is rather easy to find blame, not in the system which specifically propagates the two-party club, but rather in an individual for casting votes according to their conviction.

[former9thward]

47. Nader and Nader voters are not to blame for anything.

If a candidate is so poor that a third party will take significant votes then the blame is with that candidate and the party that nominated him. Nobody else.

[TreasonousBastard]

15. But, we have far more than two...

as anyone who has actually voted, or just seen a ballot, may have noticed.

Here's a partial list of 3rd party Presidential candidates:

http://www.presidentsusa.net/thirdparty.html

New York is apparently unusual in having a fusion ballot, where parties can cross endorse and candidates can run on several lines. This has lead to fun like the now almost defunct Liberal Party telling selected Mayoral candidates they can deliver 10,000 votes in Williamsburgh at two bucks a vote. (Far more profitable than running your own candidate) At any rate, it's lead to a lot of parties coming and going over the years.

Parliaments around the world generally work reasonably well with coalitions of various parties and I've always thought that our unusual bicameral system had something to do with our insistence on two parties running things. The electoral system no doubt has even more to do with it, as others above have noted.

But, at this point, it looks like it's mainly stasis. Both parties have huge investments in membership and support that they have been building for 150 years and even with the Republican upheavals in the 60's and 70's it's incredibly difficult to build a party from scratch.

[Xithras]

19. IMO, the lack of parties is an offshoot of the electoral college and the presidency

People commonly blame the winner-take-all electoral system, but nations like the UK use the same system and still manage to have multiple political parties. The only real difference between the US and nations like the UK is the electoral college, and the need to have a unified candidate who can attract electoral votes from states across the country. This effectively forces similarly positioned factions to join together to support a single candidate, and eventually creates a de-facto single political party. In order to compete against it, the opposing parties have to unify as well.

Other nations, like France, also have nationally elected presidents, but they don't use anything representing the electoral college and a candidate can win simply by capturing the largest percentage of the population. In the U.S., a five candidate race for the Presidency could result in a candidate winning voting majorities in two states...California and New York, and yet losing the election to another candidate who secured far fewer votes in a number of midwestern states, which gave the winning politician more electoral college votes. The need to be the first to the post in the electoral college actively forces people into two parties to function correctly.

This is yet another reason that many people want the electoral college abolished. It would indirectly undermine the long term control of both political parties...and it's one of the reasons that neither party is interested in taking up electoral college reform.

[geek tragedy]

20. 1) winner take all in district vs proportional representation; 2) third party advocates

don't want to put in the long, hard work to establish a party. There are a few exceptions (e.g. Working Families) but for the most part third parties are for nutty extremists to rant (Libertarian) or vanity projects.

[CK_John]

21. We are a culture of decision makers and fact finders. Either your with us or against us types.

NY has up to 7 parties on the ballot for general elections but they most often cross endorse candidates. Some parties are formed just to get the matching funds and provide some with a paycheck from election to election.

The drawback of not being in a major party is you have no choice in selecting the candidates.

Don't like it, form your own party, but quit whining.

[MicaelS]

23. Suppose you have 4 parties.

The most contentious issues in the US usually break down into Economic issues and Social Issues, so you have:

(A) Economic Liberals who are Social Liberals AKA Progressives
(B) Economic Liberals who are Social Conservatives AKA ????
(C) Economic Conservatives who are Social Liberals AKA Libertarians
(D) Economic Conservatives who are Social Conservatives AKA Tea Party

No single party is going to be able to pass any legislation by itself. so it is going to have to partner with the others. Who they partner with depends on this issue, and what they value more highly.

So your partnerships match up:

A + B
A + C
B + D
C + D

Think about those combinations and how they break out on the issues.

[Hugabear]

34. Other countries manage with more than two parties

Many times you'll see two or more parties forming coalitions in order to get things done.

[arely staircase]

26. It is a natural outgrowth of the seperation of powers

if we had a parlaimentary system in which Greens and Democrats got together and formed a coalition to pick the chief executive or the Libertarians and the Republicans or whatever combination thereof, it would make more sense to say for, say Nader because he would have formed a coalition with Gore (in exchange for cabinet positions, support for legislation, etc.)

[Bunnahabhain]

28. Sign of the times

That this most important of topics is so obviously misunderstood. I mean, if someone says the two party system is enshrined in the Constitution, would not simply reading the damn thing answer that question? If that's too tough a little bit of knowledge in US political history would also answer that question. Just go Google "Second Party System in the US." This refers to the second period of time scholars divide the party system of the US into. During that time there was the Democratic party, the Whig party, and the National Republican party as well as various smaller parties.

Really, it is appalling the state of political thought is in today.

As to other countries: most industrialized countries function under a parliamentary system and those lend themselves to multi-party governance much better than the US system.

[G_j]

29. campaign finance reform...

clean elections would change everything.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. "I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

[markiv]

38. G washington didnt think much of political parties

in his tortured manner of writing

17 All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.

[HughBeaumont]

42. "Some people say America needs a third party. We could really use a second."

- Jim Hightower.

[Rex]

45. MONEY!!!

It is easier to control 2 political parties as opposed to 13. It is the reason we live in a plutocracy now.

[DevonRex]

46. Parliamentary systems incorporate multiple parties into the government.

They form coalitions in order to form government when one party doesn't win a clear majority. In that way, people never feel that their vote is wasted.

Contrast that with our system. Parties really have nothing to do with government at all according to the constitution. It pretends people will not gather together into parties to promote ideas.

So, parties are private, controlled by money. You don't bet your money or your vote on a loser. It's survival of the fittest. Therefore, there is always one strong party on the left and one strong party on the right who then battle for all the votes. Zero-sum.

[Nye Bevan]

48. Big problem with this is small parties holding the balance of power.

Party X wins 250 seats in Parliament; party Y wins 240 seats, and party Z wins 15 seats. Whichever party (X or Y) that Z throws its support to, will get to govern. So X and Y will fall over themselves to ingratiate themselves with Z and agree to Z's demands.

In the USA, Z could well be a fringe religious-fundamentalist type of party, whose main demands are prohibitions of abortion and restrictions of gay rights. So you can guess how all this might end up playing out.

[DevonRex]

50. It does carry some risk.

But those party deals still don't make the law. They have to go through the legislative process. If it fails sometimes the coalition falls apart. It's much more fluid.

I think in some ways it informs the voters better, too. They don't get stuck in election-cycle politics like we do (and our politicians do).

But yeah, fringe religious parties- ick. OTOH, wouldn't it be wonderful to see the U. S. reject them outright and be enraged when a major party made a deal with them? For a change people wouldn't be talking about an individual pol's beliefs but a party explicitly formed to force religious beliefs on us. And we could fight back without restraint. I'm already spoiling for the fight

Oh, and I'm not anti-religion. But it's not appropriate in lawmaking.

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. It is a side effect of the winner take all system

In the constitution. It should be changed by the way. Good luck with that.

[liberal_at_heart]

51. Your wife is not the only one. I am now an independent because I feel the democratic party is

not liberal enough.