Ship of Fools: Is the US becoming a 3 party system in reality?

Thread: Is the US becoming a 3 party system in reality? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025495

Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on :

The farm bill failed in the US house yesterday. The Republicans blamed the Democrats for not mustering the votes to get it to pass. The Democrats basically pointed out that the Republicans have the ability to pass any bill they wish to if they can get their own people to vote for the bill.

Of the bill in question, there was a large push on the left for the bill not to pass due to cuts in the school lunch program. The final straw appears to be cuts in food stamps which the Republicans put in to try to get more Tea Party members to vote, but turned off Democrats which were considering voting for the bill.

It does appear that for all the trying, the Republican party is operating as two parties. Which means that the House leadership is trying to count the votes and consider the positions of 3 parties, instead of 2.

Now, the Democratic party has decades of not being organized (As Will Rodgers said, I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat), but the question is can the Republican party hold together? Right now the only thing that seems to keep them together is Obama, but since he will be leaving public office in 3 years, what will happen next?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

A winner-take-all system like the U.S. is optimized for the existence of exactly two political parties, no more, no less. In a lot of ways you can think of the two major American political parties as broad coalitions of interest groups. Some of these groups naturally opposed to each other (e.g. big business and labor), while others may become allies of convenience (e.g. big business and social conservatives). They key to success is to bring together enough interest groups to attain an electoral majority without having to cater to so many contradictory interests that the party can't function politically. I suspect the current Republican party has strayed into that latter category.

What usually happens in these cases is a re-alignment, where the parties swap a few interest groups in an effort to build an electoral majority. The last time this happened was in the mid-twentieth century when the Democrats embraced civil rights and their Dixiecrat wing ended up as "Reagan Democrats". The last time a major American political party actually disintegrated due to factionalism was when the Whigs were torn apart by their pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions in the 1850s. The Republican party was cobbled together out of the fragments afterwards.

Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :

Both Parties are merely PLAYERS on the same globalist-NWO team of industrial elites.

They quibble over methods, but they BOTH allow industrial capitalism to quash common laws against harm, usury, waste and deceit.

The Uniform Commercial Code by which American jurisdictions govern is a version of Roman Law, which like every other Fascist state, favors moneyed elites.

:sigh:

Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
They key to success is to bring together enough interest groups to attain an electoral majority without having to cater to so many contradictory interests that the party can't function politically. I suspect the current Republican party has strayed into that latter category.

What usually happens in these cases is a re-alignment, where the parties swap a few interest groups in an effort to build an electoral majority. The last time this happened was in the mid-twentieth century when the Democrats embraced civil rights and their Dixiecrat wing ended up as "Reagan Democrats".

The "Regan Democrats" ended up as a swing between the Democrats and the Republicans. It doesn't seems that the Republicans are willing to swing between the Democrats and the Tea Party. The Tea Party is going it's own way regardless of what the mainstream Republicans wish (see Immigration Reform). And Republicans seem to be too afraid of the Tea Party to do as they wish, (although that really might be better for the country as a whole, seriously.)

Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :

I'm so disgusted at this charade, I don't even want to discuss it anymore.

Just a game they play against us, the people.

I hear, it's the same story lots of place, even the UK.

what do you say?

eewc

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

A splintering would be interesting if unlikely. Essentially the Left has been disempowered as the Democrats move rightward into the center abandoned by the Republicans. A left/center/right three party system might reflect the splits better.

However the real problem for the Republicans right now is that the extreme right controls the primary process so they can block any centrist candidates. It will be interesting to see if Christie makes any headway as a centrist candidate. The Republicans are about to lose the south west if the tea-party manages to foil the immigration bill. At that point they start to look like a regional party.

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

If the US developed a 3-party system based on the Republican party splitting, the US would then have:

1. A Tea Party inspired "populist" extreme right wing party

2. A totally pro-corporate hardcore right wing party

3. A center-right party sometimes trying to pass itself off as something it is not, i.e., a non-right wing party.

Such is the depressing state of political affairs in the US.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

Up North, I was at the Federal NDP Convention in Montreal in April. We had several guest speakers, one was a chief advisor to Barrack Obama's campaign, Jeremy Bird, and the other was a Labor Minister from Australia, Bill Shorten.

Bird wasn't that great a speaker. I gave his speech a miss, I was upstairs. He said to a room of True Believers that you should eliminate the socialist rhetoric. That went over like a lead balloon.

Whatever the US media says, the Democrats in the US are not a left-wing party. They have a sizable left-wing element but they are not in total a left-wing party. They are a populist party. The NDP is a left-wing party. We're on a different page.

OTOH Bill Shorten was much better and much more well received. He was much more relevant too. The NDP and Australian Labor are cousins in both spirit and situation. Both Oz and Canada are Westminster parliamentary system. The US system is a different planet entirely.

There's no equivalent like Canada's NDP in the US.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

SPK:

Thanks for the report from convention.

I think it's possible that US Democratic strategists have an exaggerated reputation among progrssives in other countries, because they supposedly take on(cue melodramatic movie-trailer music) "the most formidable, lethal right-wing political machine in existence", and somehow manage to win. So people think "Gee, if that's what they can do against the Republicans, they must have some surefire methods we can use against Stephen Harper".

But of course, this doesn't apply 100% to the NDP because, for the most part, the New Democrats aren't fighting directly against the Conservatives, they're fighting against the Liberals. So the time-honoured Democratic strategy of portraying the other party as being a bunch of right-wing crazies, while portraying themselves as moderate but not left-wing, wouldn't work for the NDP. No one is going to buy the idea that Justin Trudeau is the northern version of Sarah Palin.

In the last Alberta election, the Redford Tories used classic Democratic tactics to scrape out a victory against Wildrose(the now proverbial "bozo eruptions"), but then, those Tories are more comparable to American Democrats, and the Alberta political landscape as a whole(at least since the emergence of Wildrose) more comparable to the American system.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

You haven't got a three party system unless three parties stand in elections and the electorate get a choice in whether they can vote for a bat-crazy Republican or an ordinary one.

However - and I, like everyone else in the UK, am speaking from personal experience - once the electorate isn't happy with being given a simple binary choice at elections, a First-Past-The-Post electoral system delivers governments that will inevitably consistently fail to be representative.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

As the topic is policy and not theology, I agree with Croesus.

Parties aren't ideological constructions but self interested social animals, and as such a three party system is inherently unstable.

My guess is that the libertarians and social conservatives will find common cause again, with social conservatives holding their nose discreetly while supporting libertarian candidates. In the presidential elections, this is a boon to democrats because it will depress the social conservative turnout, but in congress it won't matter because both parties have gerrymandered themselves into horrifying electoral security through social scientifically facilitated demographic symbiosis.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
SPK:

Thanks for the report from convention.

I think it's possible that US Democratic strategists have an exaggerated reputation among progrssives in other countries, because they supposedly take on(cue melodramatic movie-trailer music) "the most formidable, lethal right-wing political machine in existence", and somehow manage to win. So people think "Gee, if that's what they can do against the Republicans, they must have some surefire methods we can use against Stephen Harper".

But of course, this doesn't apply 100% to the NDP because, for the most part, the New Democrats aren't fighting directly against the Conservatives, they're fighting against the Liberals. So the time-honoured Democratic strategy of portraying the other party as being a bunch of right-wing crazies, while portraying themselves as moderate but not left-wing, wouldn't work for the NDP. No one is going to buy the idea that Justin Trudeau is the northern version of Sarah Palin.

The US spends nearly two years organizing and campaigning for presidential elections and has reams of money to do it. Canada is in a different universe, let alone another planet. Here you can give $1,200/year to a federal Party and another $1,200 cumulatively to Riding Associations, and a final $1,200 to Leadership Contestants if your party is having a contest. That's it. Campaigns last 36 days every five years (or less if there is minority government) with maybe 3 months of pre-writ. Ridings can spend $80,000 in a campaign, parties can spend $20 million or so nationally on top of that.

The NDP rank-and-file delegates happily admitted that we are so far to the Left in US terms that we're off the map. It doesn't matter what CNN says about the "Left", we know what we are.

quote:
No one is going to buy the idea that Justin Trudeau is the northern version of Sarah Palin.

He does have a delightful tendency to open his mount and insert his foot at regular intervals all the same. [Devil]

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

It's always possible that the current two party system might reconfigure as the brokenness continues.

I could see the tea party, libertarians, and the left coalescing against the corporate/military/religious factions.

Not that the result would be any better.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

Liberals and libertarians have some significant differences.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Liberals and libertarians have some significant differences.

Libertarian Gary Johnson seemed to be tailoring his recent presidential campaign at least partly to liberals and left-wingers, as with ads like this. (You Tube link)

Marijuana, marriage equality, anti-war, and repealing the Patriot Act, scored to the visual and audial signifier of the guitar-strumming hippie chick.

But of course, eliminating all vestiges of the welfare-state is not mentioned, and would likely be a pretty big deal-breaker for most liberals.

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
There's no equivalent like Canada's NDP in the US.

More's the pity.

Posted by David (# 3) on :

Problem.

quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
I'm so disgusted at this charade

Solution.

quote:
I don't even want to discuss it anymore.

Posted by David (# 3) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
You haven't got a three party system unless three parties stand in elections and the electorate get a choice in whether they can vote for a bat-crazy Republican or an ordinary one.

However - and I, like everyone else in the UK, am speaking from personal experience - once the electorate isn't happy with being given a simple binary choice at elections, a First-Past-The-Post electoral system delivers governments that will inevitably consistently fail to be representative.

A preferential system like we have in Australia isn't any better at achieving fair representation, although it can be an improvement in other ways. The only system that works is directly proportional, but that has historically provided mismatched coalitions instead of stable governments.

In any event, the UK overwhelmingly rejected the opportunity to get rid of the FPTP system, so they have no-one to blame but themselves and/or their fellow electors.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

SPK wrote:

quote:
The NDP rank-and-file delegates happily admitted that we are so far to the Left in US terms that we're off the map. It doesn't matter what CNN says about the "Left", we know what we are.

True. Though there is at least one member-in-good-standing of the Socialist International who seem to have a bit of an affinity for American Democrats.

I won't predict outright that, should the NDP succeed in usurping the Liberals as the main left-of-centre rival to the Conservatives, that you will see them go in the exact same direction that that man took the Mother Of All Anglosphere Socialist Parties. But you will probably see them move somewhat, if not considerably, to the right. Muclair was already being compared to That Man during the leadership campaign.

Though I'd be interested to hear from left-wing Albionians about just how left-wing they consider that party right now. From what I can tell, it's pretty much been reduced to preserving whatever reforms and insitutions it brought forth in the mid-20th Century, and not much else. But I follow its doings from a distance.

[ 24. June 2013, 08:29: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
... Though I'd be interested to hear from left-wing Albionians about just how left-wing they consider that party right now. From what I can tell, it's pretty much been reduced to preserving whatever reforms and insitutions it brought forth in the mid-20th Century, and not much else. But I follow its doings from a distance.

As a not particularly left wing Albionian, 'that Man' was a realist in a way that many of his party are not. What the rest of us have against him isn't his not being a True Socialist. We'd rather be governed by people who aren't. He wasn't too bad until he took us to war in Iraq. It was downhill all the way after that.

At least he had the sense to see that, fortunately, there's a straight choice between being a True Socialist and winning elections. Nor was he dishonest entryist.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Liberals and libertarians have some significant differences.
Libertarian Gary Johnson seemed to be tailoring his recent presidential campaign at least partly to liberals and left-wingers, as with ads like this. (You Tube link)

Marijuana, marriage equality, anti-war, and repealing the Patriot Act, scored to the visual and audial signifier of the guitar-strumming hippie chick.

But of course, eliminating all vestiges of the welfare-state is not mentioned, and would likely be a pretty big deal-breaker for most liberals. [emphasis mine]

Exactly. Of course, it could be a wedge issue for the left, though, just as liberals have made social conservatism a wedge against the conservatives. I know some gay libertarians on facebook that have tried to sell me on this, generally expressing deep disillusionment with the GOP.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Bullfrog:

Thanks for the input.

quote:
I know some gay libertarians on facebook that have tried to sell me on this, generally expressing deep disillusionment with the GOP.

Just to clarify, do you mean that these are gay liberarians who were interested in the GOP, but are now disillusioned with it, and are trying to turn you against the GOP by talking about how the party opposes social programs?

[ 24. June 2013, 15:29: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

I can see a case for saying the U.S. should have a number of parties such as fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, environmentalists (greens) and labor. I suspect most of us would be unsure which to join. People often care about several different issues or families of issues. People also often belong to specific parties simply out of habit or family custom, not a carefully-considered choice.

I think a more serious problem is the regularity and predictability of American elections.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
SPK wrote:

quote:
The NDP rank-and-file delegates happily admitted that we are so far to the Left in US terms that we're off the map. It doesn't matter what CNN says about the "Left", we know what we are.

True. Though there is at least one member-in-good-standing of the Socialist International who seem to have a bit of an affinity for American Democrats.

I won't predict outright that, should the NDP succeed in usurping the Liberals as the main left-of-centre rival to the Conservatives, that you will see them go in the exact same direction that that man took the Mother Of All Anglosphere Socialist Parties. But you will probably see them move somewhat, if not considerably, to the right. Muclair was already being compared to That Man during the leadership campaign.

Though I'd be interested to hear from left-wing Albionians about just how left-wing they consider that party right now. From what I can tell, it's pretty much been reduced to preserving whatever reforms and insitutions it brought forth in the mid-20th Century, and not much else. But I follow its doings from a distance.

The Federal Section is moderating, but only as far as those provincial sections that regularly get power, like BC, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Nova Scotia. The Socialist Caucus (the Hard Left) are cranky, but they are always cranky. Nobody likes them much, they're awkward and annoying. But it was fun to see them at the Preamble debate, they were chocked, locked and ready to rock.

The Quebec Section has people like Alexandre Boulerice, who is very Red, and not Liberal Red.

But the NDP is on an upswing and has been for a decade now; first we broke through in Nova Scotia, it looks like we'll get into the PEI Legislature next election and we're doing very well in Newfoundland. Quebec, of course, is paradise.

Though of all the Anglosphere Socialist parties, I'd say Canada's NDP is the most left-leaning of the lot.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Though of all the Anglosphere Socialist parties, I'd say Canada's NDP is the most left-leaning of the lot.

I think you're probably correct about that.

It is a not widely-known fact that the general scheme for the Klein Revolution in Alberta was imported from from the SI-affiliated New Zealand Labour Party. Sir Roger Douglas even served as a hired consultant for the Alberta government.

Posted by ORGANMEISTER (# 6621) on :

Palimpsest has offered an excellent explanation of the current state of the GOP. If the tea baggers kill immigration reform not only does the GOP loose the Southwest there's also a fairly good chance they lose Texas and Florida, two significant chunks of electoral votes and congressional delegations.

Boehner seems incapable of imposing discipline on his backbenchers and he's having to constantly look over his shoulder to see when and how Eric Canter is going to lead a coup to force him out of the Speakership.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Bullfrog:

Thanks for the input.

quote:
I know some gay libertarians on facebook that have tried to sell me on this, generally expressing deep disillusionment with the GOP.

Just to clarify, do you mean that these are gay liberarians who were interested in the GOP, but are now disillusioned with it, and are trying to turn you against the GOP by talking about how the party opposes social programs?

They're trying to sell me on conservatism as an ideology or political movement by distancing themselves from the GOP's culture warrior wing.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ORGANMEISTER:
Palimpsest has offered an excellent explanation of the current state of the GOP. If the tea baggers kill immigration reform not only does the GOP loose the Southwest there's also a fairly good chance they lose Texas and Florida, two significant chunks of electoral votes and congressional delegations. ...

Voter suppression, the Voting Rights Act, and the SCOTUS. If they strike down the act, and federal election reform stalls, the states can and will enact whatever voting rules it takes to suppress the vote, whether it's limiting voting hours, or requiring certain types of ID, or whatever they can think of.

(And I can't believe I'm writing this, but AIUI, the Tea Party don't like that particular nickname.)

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

The GOP is becoming a minority party, so voter suppression is a logical tactic for them to take. And when you ask people why these rules and regulations are necessary, the response is that people are voting illegally.

Now that I think about it, that is kind of creepy. [Paranoid]

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
The GOP is becoming a minority party, so voter suppression is a logical tactic for them to take. And when you ask people why these rules and regulations are necessary, the response is that people are voting illegally.

Now that I think about it, that is kind of creepy.

Since he US Supreme Court has gutted the Voting Rights Act, an extremely important development, and since the current gerrymandered Congress of whores to big business is certainly not going to be the one to correct this situation, what's to prevent the USA from regressing to a 21st century version of the Jim Crow and Robber Baron era?

And anyway who said the USA won't end up a totally non-democratic plutocracy? As long as the big business controlled media can hypnotize enough people -- if they can vote on their smartphones for the winner of "American Idol", that's all the voting rights they care about.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0