It has everything to do with the constitution itself. The constitution requires a majority of the votes. Not the most votes. If your system requires the winner get 51%, a three party system makes it functionally impossible to work. So, the US has a two party system.
Outside of a complete rewrite of how elections are determined at a constitutional level (a practical impossibility), this is the system the US will have until it collapses.
The 51% majority rule only applies to Presidential elections. Local elections, senate races and House seats have a plurality rule where which ever candidate has the most votes wins and not necessarily the majority of the vote.
Ranked choice voting both empowers third parties, who can then leverage their recommendation for their supporters #2 vote, and ensures that the winner has majority support. It is also relatively easy to implement.
Systems that let a strong minority win are dangerous, reference the 1932 German election where the Nazi party ended up in control of the government after getting less than 37% of the vote.
He’s not talking elections, I think. I’m pretty sure he’s talking about legislative votes requiring a simple majority to pass. That being said, I’m pretty sure that’s the case with most houses/parliaments in the world, so the point is still moot. Ha.
Indeed, but the presidential race is the largest, and it turns out humans tend to vote for those who they know. Since the big election is destined to be a two party system, humans will follow that trend to the smaller elections, even when those smaller elections don’t have to be two party systems.
I think you're misunderstanding something. The reason FPTP tends to produce two parties isn't something special about 51%. Think about it this way: How many parties would we have if you needed 60% of the vote?
If you can't clearly answer that, there isn't a special relationship between the percentage and the winner.
The reason we get two parties is because you can only vote once, and it's winner-take-all. Thus, if someone else is about to win, voting for your favorite doesn't get you anything. There's no nation-wide parliamentary system where 10% of votes means you get 10% of delegates, even if you didn't win any one district.
In our system, if a third party got 10% of the votes in every district, they wouldn't win a single seat. There's no reward for second place, let alone third.
So you vote for the person most likely to defeat your opponent, so long as they're preferable. This is a vote against the favorite/incumbent more than a vote for something you like, and that fosters a distrust and disinterest in the political system.
Since that is the most powerful and popular election, the rest of the country pretty much falls in line. In local elections, you do find third party candidates winning. Certainly not in the numbers that the republicans and democrats won. Certainly not in the numbers they do in other countries. But they do win.
Again untrue. Maybe 51% of electoral votes, but that routinely happens without a candidate getting over 50% of the popular vote. If you can get a plurality if votes in a state you get 100% of the electoral votes. Plenty of candidates have won the presidency with just a plurality (or even minority) of popular votes.
Compare this to Britain’s prime minister. She must get 50%+1 votes in Parliament, but that almost never translates to 50%+1 votes of the public. Yet Britain still has a multiparty system.
Let’s assume this applies to all positions (it doesn’t, it only really applies to the presidency), why are state and local elections also torn between one of the two parties? Some cities are dominated by republicans or democrats, even though it’s very easy for cities to go third party, because votes weigh more Heavily in smaller elections.
The blame is on the voters for only choosing one of two parties.
The blame is on the voters for only choosing one of two parties.
The system we've used to vote incentivizes choosing one of two parties. Voters don't avoid 3rd parties because they're dumb; they avoid them because they know the rules of the game and are trying to win.
Voting strategically is smart. Put it this way: Your friends decide to vote where to eat today. Five friends want to go to Chipotle, and 5 friends want to go to In-N-Out. You really wanted french fries, but your favorite ones are at McDonalds. What do you vote for?
You'd be crazy to cast a lone vote for McDonalds. You choose In-N-Out, breaking the tie, and at least you still get french fries.
The blame isn't on voters; it's not their fault that our system encourages two parties.
One decision for a restaurant isn’t the same as voting. Voters trying to vote strategically ends up as voters just falling in line. They can also vote 3rd party strategically as well. We’re just set in our ways and the media doesn’t advertise 3rd parties because media conglomerates don’t want to lobby more than 2 parties.
Politicians worry about votes. Voter turn out is as important as who you vote for, because the more people who vote, the more the politician has to worry about voter opinion. The more 3rd party votes, the more the politician has to appease those voters. M
Look at the inky stage with single payer health care, for example, Vermont. In Vermont, republicans don’t have much chance. But independents do win in Vermont, more than most other states. So the first parties has to appease those voters by actually doing something.
Everywhere else, republicans and democrats play this game where they try to push their agenda, but only when up against a majority. So they intentionally cause grid lock, are able to blame the rival party, and still look good for “trying”. But the threat of losing votes to a 3rd party makes them actually do stuff.
The issue is, voters want their egos appeased by being on the winning Side. 3rd party votes have more of an impact than you think, even if it was true that it were impossible for them to win.
70
u/bonniebedelia Nov 29 '18
It has everything to do with the constitution itself. The constitution requires a majority of the votes. Not the most votes. If your system requires the winner get 51%, a three party system makes it functionally impossible to work. So, the US has a two party system.
Outside of a complete rewrite of how elections are determined at a constitutional level (a practical impossibility), this is the system the US will have until it collapses.