Interesting stats from BAN

[CARLHAYDEN]

My old friend, Richard Winger has some interesting statistics for Minor party/Independent vote for Top Offices (Governor, Senator, U.S. Representative) in non-Presidential Elections for the last ninety plus years in the December 2006 Ballot Access News.

Here is a summary by decade:

02/06          5.15%
Nineties       4.67
Eighties       2.70
Seventies    2.73
Sixties         2.15
Fifties          0.87
Forties        3.10
Thirties       5.17

[True Democrat]

How many representatives have not been challenged in the modern era compared to past decades?

[dead0man]

Can the two party system survive the information age?

[Stranger in a strange land]

Can the two party system survive the information age?

yes, it will, barring massive constitutional changes. First past the post elections inevitably lead to a two-party system.

[The Mikado]

Can the two party system survive the information age?

yes, it will, barring massive constitutional changes. First past the post elections inevitably lead to a two-party system.

The Canadian NDP and BQ, as well as the British Lib Dems, would like to have a word with you.

EDIT:

And Mexico, despite having a Presidential system, has a functioning three-party democracy.

[Jacobtm]

Can the two party system survive the information age?

yes, it will, barring massive constitutional changes. First past the post elections inevitably lead to a two-party system.

That's incredibly ignorant, take a look at these pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_standings_in_the_British_House_of_Commons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_Standings_in_the_Canadian_House_of_Commons

Both the U.K. and Canada use first past the post systems, just like the U.S. does, and both have more than 2 parties in their legislatures. First past the post allows for parties with specific regional agendas, such as the Bloc Quebecois and the Scottish National Party to gain seats by beating out the two nationally-prominant parties.

Besides that, both Great Britain and Canada have three nationally-competitive parties, the Liberal Democrats in Great Britain and the New Democrats in Canada. While they aren't as popular as the Conservatives or Labour, they garner enough votes to allow them to be kingmakers after an election which leaves no party with more than 50% of the vote.

As of now, in the Canadian House of Commons, the Conservatives are the largest party, but have fewer than a majority of the seats, and are in coalition with the New Democrats.

In the U.K., Labour has 62 seats more than a majority and governs on its own. However, it is faring poorly in national polls, and is likely to loose seats in the next election. The Liberal Democrats currently have 63 seats in the House of Commons. In the next election, if Labour loses between 62 and 125 seats, they will be forced into coalition with Liberal Democrats in order to form a government.

So first past the post democracies can and do function perfectly well with more than 2 parties, it just hasn't really happened in the United States, since so much energy is focused on big personalities running for the presidency. If minor parties in the U.S. focused their money on winning specific seats in the HOR and running only excellent candidates, there's no reason they couldn't win seats in congress and establish themselves as a party as legitimate as the Democrats or Republicans.

[Stranger in a strange land]

the BQ and SNP have support that's regionally concentrated, and I have a feeling that in America, regionalism will diminish over time, especially since there's no real tradition of regional or ethnic political parties.

[Jacobtm]

the BQ and SNP have support that's regionally concentrated, and I have a feeling that in America, regionalism will diminish over time, especially since there's no real tradition of regional or ethnic political parties.

Certainly the modern U.S. doesn't have anything that could inspire parties like BQ and SNP which want secession. However, in regions like New England, where Republicans are all but extinct, there is no reason that a new political party couldn't rise up to challenge the Democrats' monolithic rule of the region, starting out by picking off particularly weak/corrupt Democrats. The great thing about a party that never has a chance of being in power is that they can hold themselves to the highest ethical standards.

The problem is that in the U.S., compared to Canada and the U.K., each district holds so many more people, and it's alot harder to garner support for a specific agenda among a huge number of people.

[Verily]

Can the two party system survive the information age?

yes, it will, barring massive constitutional changes. First past the post elections inevitably lead to a two-party system.

The Canadian NDP and BQ, as well as the British Lib Dems, would like to have a word with you.

EDIT:

And Mexico, despite having a Presidential system, has a functioning three-party democracy.

Parliamentary systems breed a somewhat different style of party democracy that is more open to third- and fourth-party movements. As long as the US has the Electoral College and to a lesser extent the Presidency, the US will have only two parties.

Jacob also brings up an important point. The NDP and the Lib Dems focus heavily on localized campaigns. That's much more difficult in the US where districts are both gerrymandered so badly that they rarely form coherent communities and large enough that it is very difficult to run a true "grassroots" campaign.

But some of your information is wrong, Jacob. The NDP is basically a socialist party (less so now than it used to be, but still at least on the left side of social democracy) and would never form a coalition with the Conservatives. In fact, Canada has a tradition of government by parties short of a majority without seeking coalition partners. Instead, they pass confidence votes by trying to scrounge up enough support from the opposition parties.