How come there are still only 2 parties in the U.S.?

[jet57]

Yes, it does seem like that. If one could hide the R and the D, just put forth how the last two presidents have governed, one would see very little difference. At least in the big things as you described. Yet if one listens to the rhetoric, they are polar opposites.

Right: what they say; how they sell themselves is quite different, but when one gets in office, it becomes a whole different thing. This is what makes me so suspicious. I would lay money that if a third party won the presidency, the same thing would happen: it's a bit weird.

 

[Perotista]

Right: what they say; how they sell themselves is quite different, but when one gets in office, it becomes a whole different thing. This is what makes me so suspicious. I would lay money that if a third party won the presidency, the same thing would happen: it's a bit weird.

You may be right. I worked for Perot both in 1992 and 96, back then I would have vehemently disagreed with you. But not today.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

That and the fact Republicans and Democrats write the election laws as a mutual protection act making it as hard as possible for any third party to become viable.

True instead there being new political parties, factions try to take over the two established political parties. Socialists and Libertarians have been trying hard to become the NEW Democrats and Republicans. And to a certain degree they have succeeded. Not entirely but enough to bend both political parties well beyond what they would have been without factional influence.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Simply put, no one has come forward with a true alternative. Maybe some policies that attract a lot of voters, but there really isn't a party machine with people with track records, voting histories, and credibility in governance.

To date, alternatives have always tried to start at the top, going for president and only ruining it for that particular group in electing the worst, for them.

Canada's alternative parties, NDP, Green, Bloc Quebecois, Reform Party etc., have all begun at the grass roots level, electing people to school board and city council, then going for a provincial or national seat.

The US needs a middle party...true liberals.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Right: what they say; how they sell themselves is quite different, but when one gets in office, it becomes a whole different thing. This is what makes me so suspicious. I would lay money that if a third party won the presidency, the same thing would happen: it's a bit weird.

Power corrupts.

 

[Perotista]

True instead there being new political parties, factions try to take over the two established political parties. Socialists and Libertarians have been trying hard to become the NEW Democrats and Republicans. And to a certain degree they have succeeded. Not entirely but enough to bend both political parties well beyond what they would have been without factional influence.

I haven't thought of it in that way, but I think what you say is truer than not. I think religion has always played a role in politics, but not like the advent of the religious right in the 1970's which coalesced around one political party. So in a way we have the nanny state party vs. the religious one. Very strange the way things have gone, but then again maybe not.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

I haven't thought of it in that way, but I think what you say is truer than not. I think religion has always played a role in politics, but not like the advent of the religious right in the 1970's which coalesced around one political party. So in a way we have the nanny state party vs. the religious one. Very strange the way things have gone, but then again maybe not.

The religious right isnt a true religious political party, they are just exploiting Christianity. Its like kissing babies, they do it because they believe thats what their supporters want to see.

Neither are much of a concern if their agendas fail to gain wide public support. Given enough rope they always end up hanging themselves as they always have down.

 

[AJiveMan]

This;

Ballot access laws:
Nationally, ballot access laws are the major challenge to third party candidacies. While the Democratic and Republican parties usually easily obtain ballot access in all fifty states in every election, third parties often fail to meet criteria for ballot access, such as registration fees. Or, in many states, they do not meet petition requirements in which a certain number of voters must sign a petition for a third party or independent candidate to gain ballot access.[4] In recent presidential elections, Ross Perot appeared on all 50 state ballots as an independent in 1992 and the candidate of the Reform Party in 1996. (Perot, a multimillionaire, was able to provide significant funds for his campaigns.) Patrick Buchanan appeared on all 50 state ballots in the 2000 election,[5] largely on the basis of Perot's performance as the Reform Party's candidate four years prior. The Libertarian Party has appeared on the ballot in at least 46 states in every election since 1980, except for 1984 when David Bergland gained access in only 36 states. In 1980, 1992, 1996 the party made the ballot in all 50 states and D.C. The Green Party gained access to 44 state ballots in 2000 but only 27 in 2004. The Constitution Party appeared on 42 state ballots in 2004.[6] Ralph Nader, running as an independent in 2004, appeared on 34 state ballots. In 2008, Nader appeared on 45 ballots and D.C. For more information see ballot access laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_(United_States)

Lack of representation.

 

[Perotista]

The religious right isnt a true religious political party, they are just exploiting Christianity. Its like kissing babies, they do it because they believe thats what their supporters want to see.

Neither are much of a concern if their agendas fail to gain wide public support. Given enough rope they always end up hanging themselves as they always have down.

They did with Aiken and Mourdock.

 

[clownboy]

The answer is that no third party has ever taken the time to develop the grassroots for a national run. Perot tried to start it off in modern times, but no one really carried that ball after he dropped out. It takes a couple generations and persistence to even capture a couple states. You have to grow region by region from the local positions to the statehouse to national office. Just jumping to a national office isn't going to build your party brand. The third parties are too focused on the national.

 

[michijo]

green Party has been doing this for a while, They are kicked out of presidential debates. Remember when Jill Stein was arrested? Not that I care, because frankly the Green Party is too grass roots for me. They do stuff like embrace Christianity and other religions. I prefer to be more self-centered.

But if you think about it, the USA has destroyed the democratically elected leaders of Guatemala, Chile, and a billion other lands. The elections are a farce. How you can have democratic elections in the USA but force juntas against the people of other lands defies all reason and deserves a lot of study. I think about it a lot.

This is why I dont vote as an American. I say let the Mexican immigrants vote and I will take a back seat. After all they work harder than I do.

 

[imagep]

The answer is that no third party has ever taken the time to develop the grassroots for a national run. Perot tried to start it off in modern times, but no one really carried that ball after he dropped out. It takes a couple generations and persistence to even capture a couple states. You have to grow region by region from the local positions to the statehouse to national office. Just jumping to a national office isn't going to build your party brand. The third parties are too focused on the national.

I suspect no one wanted to even touch that ball after Perot handled it.

He tainted it with some silly policies, such as Perot's belief that we should sell off all the gold in Fort Knox.

What amazes me is that he is blamed for syphoning off votes from the republican candidate. By todays standards, he wouldn't be considered a conservative at all, not even a republican. He wanted to do things like expand funding for education, he was pro-choice, he believed that top US executives were overpaid, he was pro gay rights, he wanted to increase gas taxes, wanted to give foreign aid to Russia, wanted universal health care, wanted to cut military spending, etc.

 

[Meister]

So, being an American, why do you not refer to Democrats as The Democratic Party?

Think about it.....are you a republican or a democrat?
Not, are you a repubican or a democratic?

 

[ygmarny109]

The fact is that there are more than two parties on the United States, as you should hopefully see on your Presidential Election ballot every four years. There are several more candidates than the leading candidates of the Democratic and Republican parties during every election, some from the Libertarian party and many others. The Democratic and Republican parties just happen to be the most dominant because those are the oldest parties. However, you could argue that this nation isn't even BIpartisan because so much of the government is dominated by Republicans. Nonetheless, the Democratic Party is still there, and so are the less prominent parties.

 

[LeoVlaming]

How can someone call that a democracy?

When I think of democracy, I think of the Canadian political system, where there are many parties and anyone can start his own party given that the person has enough money.

I am surprised that most American politicians seem to ignore this issue.

Maybe you should try to inform yourself about reality before trying to comment on it.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

gerrymandering, mostly.

Ah everyone's favorite boogeyman for why they lose, it's only because of gerrymandering

 

[EMNofSeattle]

So, being an American, why do you not refer to Democrats as The Democratic Party?

Why? are you a democratic?

 

[Helix]

Ah everyone's favorite boogeyman for why they lose, it's only because of gerrymandering

we are also stuck with a failing two party system because of tribalism. "them bad, us good" is a lot easier than nuance. go team. but yeah, gerrymandering is a real problem. politicians drawing their own districts is a great example of conflict of interest.

 

[jet57]

Why? are you a democratic?