Hot answers tagged

177

I mean, we've had exclusively Democrat or Republican governments for well over 150 years, I'm not sure how else you'd measure "total and perpetual dominance".


88

One reason why the UK has more parties than the US is simply that it is cheaper to compete in the political game. General election campaigning is effectively limited to four weeks before the election date in the UK, not two (or more) years. The maximum expenditure permitted by an individual candidate is either £10,000 or £16,000 depending on the number of ...


86

Duverger's law says that for a given district in a plurality (first-past-the-post) system, the number of parties will tend towards two. In the United States, there is an office with a national district, the presidency. As a result, the total number of parties tends toward two. If a third party becomes large enough, it takes over one of the other parties....


83

Let's imagine that this were to actually happen. Major members of the two parties realized that what you said was true, and that if they could cooperate then they would totally and completely dominate the political system, and could do whatever they wanted, no matter what the electorate said, and no matter how bad it was for those governed. They would soon ...


82

A good explanation might be confirmation bias. Confirmation bias in a nutshell is the psychological phenomenon that people generally tend to trust information which supports their views and distrusts information which contradicts their views. And this trust or distrust does of course extend to those who provide that information. And it just so happens that ...


81

In short, because Democratic Party in USA is roughly split between two factions (I'll label them "progressive" and "establishment" just for the sake of labeling). FiveThirtyEight covered this split in great detail in the last couple of months (as well as a split in Republican party); but for the purposes of this question, Sanders represented the "...


79

The standard terms of left and right politics originate from the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly of 1789. They are often considered overly simplistic for today's complex political landscape. In the 1789 at the French National Assembly the First Estate (noblemen) sat on the right side and the Third Estate (revolutionaries) sat on the left ...


78

Why are “the rich” more able to identify the party which represent their interests than “the poor”? Mostly, because your assumption is just that, an assumption, and is an incorrect one at that. I won't go down the rabbit hole of disputing your Marx-influenced class based assumption that somehow, left wing parties[1] represent interests of "the poor" ...


73

Because the two main parties absorb emergent third parties Any time any third party starts to get serious traction in the United States, it eventually will find one of the major parties shifting its platform to absorb those voters into its coalition. Unlike most of the other parties in America, the Democrats and the Republicans are both in the business of ...


70

There are so many false assumptions in your question. But one that wasn't addressed by the other answers is this: There are a lot of people who vote based on their moral principles. Whether rich or poor, one can believe that the proper role of government is to help to poor. Or one can believe that charity should not be compelled by law. One can believe that ...


66

The idea that the DNC "rigged" the primaries is false. I voted Bernie in the primary, too, but it is very important not to take the claim in the WikiLeaks graphic at face value. This July 2016 New Republic article debunks the claim: No, the DNC Didn’t Rig the Primary in Favor of Hillary: Wikileaks’s tweets conjured dark and menacing conspiracies, but ...


64

George Washington said: However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very ...


57

A safeguard WAS put into place. We call it the Electoral College (although it is not named as such in the Constitution). It failed miserably at that goal. The original vision when the Electoral College system was devised had three aims: To prevent political parties from dominating politics. To prevent a populist from getting elected to office. To "...


51

Institutions and constitutional arrangements are important as they provide a buffer against temporary excesses, but the ultimate check is civil society, really. Otherwise look at Hungary, Turkey, etc. No amount of paper institutions is going to prevent a slide into something like that. Unless enough people say no. There have been a lot of papers on ...


51

This is a rather simple mathematical exercise. If you allow me total freedom to draw districts within the current requirements, I can place anyone in any district I want provided they have equal population in the end. Connectedness in two dimensions is not enough of a barrier to stop this. In that case, my best bet is to fill as many districts as possible ...


45

Short answer: everybody hates somebody, and by extension that person/group's cherished pet cause. Seriously. Consider the following conversation: Person A: Hey there gun owner, did you know that you support school vouchers? Person B: I do? Why? Person A: Because the people trying to take your guns away hate them. Meanwhile, in a parallel universe: Person ...


41

There are many in the United States who lack a basic understanding of Socialism in even a few of its many forms. The most damning indictment is when a person uses Communism, Nazism, and Socialism as though they are synonyms. It would be lost on them to attempt to explain nuances between Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism. There are numerous programs ...


40

Because US Democratic party is not left wing, it's just slightly more to the left than extremely right wing Republican party. This is an important point, one that is worth expanding. The ideology of the Democratic Party is closer to that of European Centre-Right parties like the UK Conservative Party and the German CDU than it is to the European Centre-Left,...


35

To quote from my own answer on History SE, the terms "left" and "right" have no objective meaning in today's global politics (unlike their historical usages covered by other answers) - they are 100% subjective, AND extremely varied across polities even when attempted to be used objectively. To give some examples of complete inconsistencies: In post-USSR ...


35

Traditionally, yes, but not much anymore One way would be to look at how often members of one party vote the same as members of another party. In this 2015 paper published on PLOS One: The Rise of Partisanship and Super-Cooperators in the U.S. House of Representatives, Andris et.al. do just this with data from 1949-2018: We define a network of over 5 ...


34

It's from a combination of factors. The following is the perspective from the United States: Conservatives are, on the whole, more aligned with business and/or industry Since industry is most likely to be adversely affected by the consequences of regulations to reduce global warming (emissions restrictions, for example) there is an incentive to deny global ...


31

I actually upvoted K Dog's answer because "uniparty" is probably the hypothesis being advanced by the question (which itself is rather vague). But it's also easy to see why doesn't really work that way: primaries. It's easy for a party to change is position over time when its candidates are elected too, and that happens in the primaries. Just look how the ...


30

In terms of not achieving the nomination of their party due to losing the primary contests directly, no. However, there have been times when the incumbent president seeking re-election has pulled out of the contest early, for example in 1968 when Lyndon B. Johnson pulled out of the race after winning the first primary in New Hampshire by only 7 percent - ...


29

Assuming the statistic is accurate For a long time, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats were ideologically pure. There were the southern Democrats who voted very differently from the rest of their party. And there were New England Republicans who did the same (in reverse). In more recent years, the New England Republicans have mostly been ...


28

OK, there are different alternatives, none of which is a full fit, and most of which don't actually represent any viable (or even registered) party in modern USA. The fit would depend on which of the bullet points you are most willing to sacrifice. Let's group these together into larger themes: Economic statism/populism I am for greater government ...


26

The idea is to actually reduce bartering and strange deals by making a coalition agreement. Let's assume this isn't done and instead, everyone is free to vote on every decision. What would happen? A lot of horse trading, all the time. "If you vote for our coal permission law now, I will vote against capping refugee numbers." This sort of weird deals would ...


26

TL;DR: Its complicated Most of the time England has Labour and Conservative as the two main parties, with the Liberal Democrats getting a few seats and hoping that they will hold the balance of power. Wales and Scotland have these three parties plus their own separatist parties (Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National Party) which are broadly left and tend ...


25

The reason PiS is considered dangerous is not because they have the absolute majority, it's what they are doing with it. In just the first three month of the legislative period, they: Changed the rules of procedure of the constitutional court to make it harder for them to rule laws as unconstitutional. Increased the control of the parliament over the public ...


25

It should also be mentioned that Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat. He ran for the Senate as an independent. While he caucused with the Democrats, he never claimed to be one before running for president. For that matter, while running he barely claimed to be a Democrat. He joined party leadership, but now he's back to declaring himself an independent. ...


23

I think that you are looking at too much rational level concerning people's reaction. Look a bit more at ideology: Whoever shares your views (whichever they are), would seem to you be a nice, trustworthy person who would do lot's of good in the world. There would be also a grain of truth in it, as it would be easier to get on with like minded people. In the ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible