Why are there just two parties competing in political America?
In the final rounds for the election of the president of the US there are always just two parties involve. The democratic and the republican (in random order, though the democratic sprang up in my mind firstly).
Now in Europe there are dozens of parties involved. The biggest delivers the prime minister and his party governs with others if they reach over 75 seats of the 150. Now you could argue that this is in reality or in fact the same. Nevertheless, why are there just two parties in the US?
Now in Europe there are dozens of parties involved. The biggest delivers the prime minister and his party governs with others if they reach over 75 seats of the 150. Now you could argue that this is in reality or in fact the same. Nevertheless, why are there just two parties in the US?
Comments (70)
The two parties have rigged the system, including outright legislation, that makes it difficult for a another camel to get his nose under the tent. I hear NY has toyed with run-off elections recently and it worked. Short answer: The people have to stand up on their hind legs and stop with the "lesser of two evils" BS. It's still evil. I was hoping Sanders and Trump would have cut ties and ruined the D and R parties, but, like they say, hope in one hand and shit in the other. Let me know what you get.
The number of valid votes is divided by the number of seats; add one. This gives a quota. Those who receive a quota are elected. Excess votes are transferred to the next preference.
The result is a house that represents the distribution of political support across the community. In practice this means that parties have to negotiate policy with other parties.
It works very well.
:up: Only in our (un)American dreams.
The fault is ours, the electorate's. There ARE third party candidates, but nobody supports them at the polls. The reason for this is that American politics is largely preventative: in a climate which has seen centrism fade from view, and the right and left become increasingly polarized, we don't vote for a candidate or a platform, we vote AGAINST a party and it's platform. Democrats won't cast their vote for a green party candidates largely because they are terrified of the Republican candidate winning. Republicans won't cast their vote for a Libertarian candidate because they are terrified that so doing will result in the Democratic candidate winning. That seems to be the nature of our politics in America, and so the conundrum in which we find ourselves.
Quoting James Riley
Hahaha, now you sound like my nonna; I haven't heard that phrase used in a long time! My maternal grandma used to say that whenever I made a statement beginning with "I wish...". Riley, you must be Irish in actuality! When I'd ask her where she got that from, nonna used to say that that saying was "something that the Irish say".
Blaming the sheep is little too easy. Replace the current rigged electoral gerrymandering racket with a modern parliamentary system comparable to those by which other developed nations govern themselves, then start flaying those damn bleatin' sheep.
:up:
Not that I am pro-parliament. But supporting one of the two parties seems the only rational choice unless you want to be a protest vote.
That reflects and feeds the attitude towards our electoral system of which I spoke above. If the electorate believes that only the two parties are viable, then all voters are simply going to vote against the party, the one of "the two", which they percieve as threatening their vision for "America"...for what our society should be. If everybody would just overcome their fear, and vote Libertarian, we'd all be alot better off... :joke:
The parties aren’t some abstraction, but actual groups of people who work towards their common betterment and have entrenched power structures. The typical voter who identifies as a party member, though removed from the functioning of their actual party and probably not dues paying, is not in a position to change power by merely winning one election, regardless of the significance of such office. Until the third-party has broad loyalty amongst entrenched members in all levels of government, it is not a true power broker.
That's true, but it'd "be a start", would show the vulnerability of the two party system, and would be a breath of fresh air as well.
The Americans are quick to criticise other countries for their way of governing. The fact remains that there are only two parties because Americans restrict the thoughts of their population. A dumb population is easier to manipulate.
"There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party … and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt — until recently … and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties."
EXCELLENT.
Note: Even in European countries there are usually only two main parties in the running at any particular time. That said there are certainly others that have waxed and waned over the decades and at least have some minute impact even when far behind the others. The system in the US is puzzling to me tbh.
Overall I think the vast majority of governments have too much to deal with. Decentralising power makes the most sense and for whatever reason (probably the delusion of ‘patriotism’) the chance passed us by several decades ago. Meaning countries should’ve split up so individual votes effected individual lives rather than merely feeding into a monster they had no connection to.
Politics for the people now seems to take form in poor and weak rebellions by the uninformed and cowering intellects.
A split in the US seems to be the best possible outcome in the near future for everyone across the globe. Given that the US is so dominant right now it could still retain dominance over other bodies that are feared too whilst breaking/splitting into more manageable forms.
Either way I’m still convinced that the idea of ‘nation’ is in its death throes right now and that ‘God is dead’ will be of less interest soon enough as I’m sure the more relevant point now is ‘Nation is dead’ … when this is noticed maybe politics for the people and of the people will revive itself.
1) The amazing idea that democracy would work through the machinations of the two political parties, inside from them in the "primaries" in Presidential elections, as the position of the president is given near mythical status.
2) The idea that any other "third" party will either not have any chance or will simply be a spoiler, which is enforced by a media that only focuses on the two parties. The parties at least tell they have a huge following, the DNC with 48 million and the GOP with 36 million members, which is quite a lot.
3) The instigation of political polarization and tribalization by the two parties has lead Americans to think that they are divided by the lines of these two parties. As the two parties are quite close to each other on many issues (as noted earlier by the quote from Gore Vidal by @Tom Storm), they cannot compete with different policy options, but simply portray the other party in the worst way and instill fear about the other. This leads to what some could say amounts to inciting political violence, but this also has the effect that it divides the opposition of the two-party system into separate camps. The divide and rule strategy has been quite successful many times. A divided opposition to the two-party system will not be threat to the two parties.
And due to the geographic divide will lead to the inevitable outcome of a more literal split. In other countries the political division is generally scattered in the US you can pretty much see borders in the map.
Exactly. We could establish term limits which would then increase the frequency with which one needs to buy off a politician, but then it would eventually be realized that purchasing the political parties themselves rather than the individuals would be more efficient.
The best solution would be to abolish political parties altogether.
:up: We don't necessarily need a Libertarian Party. I think that if you abolish political parties then most politicians would actually take more libertarian stances.
Quoting Ennui Elucidator
Protest votes seem to be the majority type of vote in the U.S. as most of the commentary of politicians is demonizing their opponents rather than proposing their own ideas. Most people in America vote against the other party rather than for the another. As Obama has told his constituents, "I want you to stay angry." Is using anger as the reason for your vote a rational choice?
The problem is that the media has become mouth-pieces for the political parties and people only get their information from one source - the source that reaffirms their own cognitive biases. Abolish political parties and you abolish the team mentality (group-think).
Quoting Ennui Elucidator
No, the typical voter is a one-issue voter and only registers as a member of the party that is on their side of their one issue, even if the other party sides on other issues the voter might take on the other issues. The typical voter isn't really interested in the other issues and allow the party they've adopted to tell them what positions to take on these other issues. These are the ones that simply regurgitate what their party is saying.
In taking a more objective view of the situation you can see that the both political parties are accurate on some issues and inaccurate on others, so being a member of one forces you into this box of contradiction. Abolishing political parties would free one's mind to seek out candidates that match more of your positions on all of the issues, and not just one.
Quoting I like sushi Yes. So abolishing political parties would be double-good in weeding out the ones that find it difficult to think for themselves from the voting system, and endowing those that do take the time to research the candidates with more options.
Quoting TheMadFoolThen abolishing political parties would leave you with no problems. :cool:
:sweat: :grin:
There have been instances for governmental reform but generally they are sidelined as much as possible by those in power because it doesn't suit them.
In this instance the US when in splits (assuming it is still a powerhouse when it does) may open up a door to change. Either way I think the 'nation' is on its way out and I've little idea what will come next but technology will undoubtedly play a major role.
The U.S. govt. is an elitist oligarchy after all.
Quoting I like sushi
I'm still not sure. I think the two parties need each other and will try to hold the country together under the status quo for as long as possible. One party has no one else to blame when things go south, so the only way one party stays in power is by becoming more authoritarian - by taking away your right to complain and be angry at them.
The population has/is outgrowing the need for the idea of 'country'. I'm not making prediction about what will/might happen but I cannot see a way past the dissolution of the 'nation state' this century (and see it happening already).
To unite across the globe religious doctrine was used. This spread out from one place to another. Then the religious attitude declined and we're seeing a clinging to nationhood instead (as has been happening for the last century or two). Whatever remains of the nation idea after the public loses interested will basically form the next social epoch I'd say and I think we're living through the transition right now.
The repression of other parties is not the repression of flexibility. As Karl Popper argued, when suffering electoral losses the parties in a two-party system must seek ideological reform or they continue to lose.
https://amp.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2016/01/31/from-the-archives-the-open-society-and-its-enemies-revisited
In the United States, the two main parties have gone through significant reforms during their lifetimes, and continue to this day.
Further, politicians in a system of proportional representation are beholden to their party before their constituents. Often, the party chooses who will lead it, and thus, who will lead the country should they win. Also, coalition governments are ass.
Everyone in the world knows you are an empire, accept most of the American population, do wake up, living in delusion is detrimental to the health of the world, not to mention your own well-being. You believe you live in a democracy, that your elected president is the supreme leader, all power within presidential hands----- wake up!! cut the strings of your puppet dance, and start to listen to the world at large. If your president trys to cut his strings in this elite puppet dance he will be delt with, the powers that be don't really care who is president, its their puppet show. Listen to the world, they are not all wearing black hats, many of their hats are whiter than yours. Two parties, a basic uncluttered delusion of a democracy.
I suppose it's mostly tradition, derived from the British Parliament within a monarchy, where the debating room had only two opposing sides : Left and Right. Later democracies probably learned that a two-party system forces moderates to choose a side : one extreme or the other -- the lesser of two evils. But, multi-party systems face the same problem, finding an acceptable middle ground within a diversity of opinion. Fortunately, as long as the extremists are roughly equal in power, most contests will result in an approximation of the moderate position. Unfortunately, all too often, one extreme is more ruthless (don't play fair) than the other : e.g. the extreme patriotism of Hitler's National Socialism and Trump's America First ; or the impractical (extreme idealism) ideology of Communism.. :cool:
The answer is: that is how things turned out. The Founding Fathers did not have this in mind, though many of them feared it.
Just sounds cynical and angry mixed with a bit of misplaced optimism about how politics is some sort of vestige of power structures of yore. Political coalitions are a function of human relationships.
I actually know party members and power brokers - the sorts of people that engage in perpetuating their own power and institutional power. Even if you said that all parties ceased to exist tomorrow, they would still have the same alliances, loyalties, and social debt and assets that they had before you made your proclamation on high.
Do you mind providing some examples of societies where there are no political loyalties or other sorts of social capital used to organize 10,000 people dependent on cooperative trade/coexistence?
This is true. What is happening is that you are getting areas with vast amounts of either Republican voters or Democrat voters. Typically you can guess where the large cities are and what is rural area, yet in the US this is even more visible.
History remembers Hitler's brownshirts, the SA, yet history commonly doens't remember the Roter Frontkämpferbund of the Communist Party, or the other various paramilitary groups starting with the Freikorps.
(You didn't have only Nazi paramilitaries in Weimar Germany...before Hitler came into power.)
The problem usually isn't that one side uses 'extra-parliamentary' action and others don't, what is the likely event is that the democratic system simply disintegrates into using violence, election rigging and other unlawful means. It simply becomes "the new reality", the norm how political competition happens. In third world countries it's quite 'normal'. The worst option is that democracy is replaced by guns without any trace to a democratic system.
I think one canary in the coal mine is when you start to have far too many different flags in different marches, people with gear in order to participate in a riot and openly carried weapons in political rallies.
People vote republican because they don't want the democrats. People for democrat because they don't want the republicans. Each party then just criticises the other, as that is the best tactic. Horrible system.
Do you really think that?
How does what I said score on the plausibility scale?
What do you think is wrong with it (what I said)?
I doubt it. It's kind of difficult for a nation to abandon nationhood when other nations aren't, and I doubt that all nations would abandon it at the same time. What do you think North Korea would do if South Korea abandoned it's nationhood? What would China do if the U.S. abandoned its nationhood and what would Iran do if Israel abandoned its nationhood?
Just like "saving the Earth", "abandoning nationhood" is only doable if EVERYONE does it.
Just watch. I’ve abandoned it and many others have too. It is only a recent idea and hasn’t been around for long anyway. You just assume it is normal because it is all you know. The population just hit a certain critical mass that made ‘nationhood’ a more wearable premise. It’s falling quickly out of fashion now and the old language barriers are falling fast too (they were the main dictates of ‘nation’ prior to borders.
I'll leave you with two English adages:
1. The more the merrier! or Two heads are better than one!
2. Too many cooks spoil the broth!
Two seems to hit the sweet spot!
I don't see where I even implied, much less said, that this would or could happen overnight. Any emotional aspect that you thought that I used was simply your own projection. Sometimes stating facts to those that don't like to hear them can come across as sounding angry and cynical.
I just doesn't make any logical sense to say that something that no longer exists would still have the same alliances, loyalties, and social debt and assets that they had before. The people that made up these fundamentalist groups might still have these things in the short term, they wouldn't necessarily be useful to maintain in the short term especially if term limits were implemented as well. I never said that abolishing political parties was the only thing that needed to be done, but is a necessary thing to be done.
Quoting Ennui Elucidator
Truly progressive ideas don't usually have a precedence in history. That's why their progressive.
What is truly progressive about it? That you think political parties are somehow inherently anathema to the common person such that abolishing political parties is necessary?
So far as I can tell, political parties arise as a socializing of interests amongst people. Sure, old political parties have the features of the people already invested in them, but new political parties can be single issue, multi-issue, any issue you want. How is making a law that says me and 5,000 sympathists can't work together to establish broad social policy, governmental systems, property rights, etc. good for the common man?
Sounds more to me that you simply surround yourself with like-minded individuals that reinforce this belief.
I think I could be fine with single-issue political parties. I don't think there would be much difference between that and no political parties. My main issue is with the group-think that multi-issue parties create where you join a party for one issue that you care about, don't bother educating yourself on the other issues that the party takes, and end up letting the party think for you on those issues.
There's also the issue where you may join a party because they share your goal on one issue, but then you eventually care less about the issue and more about the party itself - as if it's some sort of religion.
If you ask people in Europe whether they are European or x nationality a growing proportion of them say European first and x second. I don’t surround myself with them because I don’t live in Europe.
My observation is historical. It isn’t concrete though, but I don’t see how it is a ‘belief’ to point out that the current idea of ‘nation’ is both a recent one (developed more or less within the previous century). In terms of how populations cooperate and relate religion has reached across cultures and as organised religions have become less of a given in places like Europe - again parallel to the more solid development of the current idea of ‘nation’. It looks like the population is largely disconnected from political power, and more importantly they are more aware that they are. What follows is either splintering of the idea of ‘nation’ or a more broad and far reaching idea (like religion) that has greater reach now due to English basically being a global language and an overwhelming capacity to communicate with anyone anywhere all the time.
Something has got to give.
Different languages developed because people segregated themselves from other groups. Languages didn't invade other languages. Groups of people invaded the land where other groups of people lived. Sure, 1000s of years ago, national borders weren't as clearly defined as they are now, there were still nations whose limits existed as far as a king's army could reach. History also shows that when a group of people lose the cohesion that defines their group (like a nation) others move in and take control. The plight of the Native Americans is a great example. When the various tribes united, they were a force to be respected, but individually they pretty much died out.
Actually we really have just one party in the US and that is the party for cronyism/plutocracy - those that have influence and power watching over for those that also rich and influential. The only difference between the the two is one is just right wing where the other is the looney ultra-right wing.
There only seem to be two parties because the politicians are constantly using brinkman ship to get whatever they want, and the powers that be like the politicians constantly fighting/arguing because it creates a distraction for what they are up to.
What is an issue? Can I have a party that says "People should have unfettered access to abortion" and "People should have unfettered access to abortion and the government should pay for it" as a single issue party? What about a party that says "People should have unfettered access to abortion" and "People should have access to any reproductive technology/treatment of their choice"? And then if I couple that with broader benefits for low income families?
I just don't see how an artificial limit on what I can advocate for with like minded individuals strikes anyone as progressive. Progressivism, at least to me, seems most effective when people are organized. Limiting political organizations (and thereby prohibiting the pooling of money for common expression) of necessity favors wealthy individuals. Unless of course you think that in addition to eliminating parties you want to otherwise limit people's political speech/behaviors.
I suspect that normally apolitical people become radically politicized when something they hold dear is threatened. That's when ordinary politics becomes religionized --- that is, sacred enough to kill for.. But Left and Right hold different things sacred. So a democratic society must somehow bow to all gods, and honor all belief systems, and avoid dishonoring any particular sacred cow.
Unfortunately, that's extremely difficult in a multi-cultural society. Classical Rome achieved that balance by equal treatment of all religions, except for the unifying official Roman religion of Emperor divinity. But, that balance was upset when Christianity became the official religion of the empire. Because monotheism is typically intolerant of "Other" gods. And that political imbalance led to the "fall of Rome".
In our day, even non-theistic religions like Fascism & Communism have become the "other gods" in some cases. That's because they demand the same kind of loyalty to nation or party, that used to be reserved for the gods of chosen people. Just as patriotic young men have always taken-up weapons in defense of home, or tribe, or city, or fatherland, they now replace democratic tolerance with death-dealing arguments ; "bow the knee or die". So, somehow, we must find a way to get back to pragmatic mundane politics, and away from all-or nothing idealistic partisanship. Perhaps a new national non-religion that accepts all gods and sacred cows. :cool:
PS__That's not a new idea. It was tried in post-revolution France : the Cult of the Supreme Being. It was a philosophical rational religion that only appealed to a minority of the populace. Apparently, human nature is not yet ready for a philosophical rational political system like Democracy.
How is abolishing political parties imposing limits on peoples' ideas? If anything, it removes those limits.
You seem to be forgetting that you vote for candidates which have stances on multiple issues, not just one. So by focusing on one you may end up voting against your position on other issues.
And if abortion is the one issue that a person cares about, then I feel sorry for that person. But sure, if we can encourage people that don't want to be parents to not be parents then that would be a good thing. I'd just have to ask why you think abortion is the best method of birth control. Abortion should be the last resort and as a last resort I would support it.
Voting is a binary choice - either you vote for someone or you don't. The candidate has no idea why you voted for them on the basis of the fact that their vote tally anonymously went up by one. Voting communicates nothing, but the vote tally decides who is elected.
The context of the vote, however, leads to many interpretations. Where you say to a candidate - "I am voting for you because..." the candidate has some semblance of why you are voting for them (or allege to be). The current US Congressional District is in excess of 700,000 people. If each person had to independently express why they will or will not vote for someone, it would take a candidate 493 days listening to constituents for one minute apiece to hear why the person is voting for them. However, if 70,000 people organize in support of an individual based upon one (or more issues), they could far more efficiently convey their ideas to a candidate even if the group's representative took 5 hours to speak to the candidate.
Modern national elections are on a massive scale where information is overwhelming for candidate and voter alike. Delegation of function - knowing the issues, soliciting votes for the person that supports your issues, getting funding to make that possible, understanding the credible opposition, etc. is essential to effectively elect individuals that represent their constituency of more than a few thousand.
That you don't like the current parties and believe your only chance of competing with them is to abolish them doesn't solve the political problems that parties organically solve (and solved). I asked you what a single issue looks like for purposes of "single issue parties" and you, someone interested in political philosophy, spent more time emoting about an example issue rather than confronting the political philosophy question posed. Expecting candidates (or officials) to focus on the important stuff of their own volition without constant reminders of what they should be focusing on is wishful thinking at best.
Political parties are not about who anyone votes for - it is about mutual advocacy and bringing the power of government to bear in the desired ways. Yes, getting your candidate elected (and re-elected) is often necessary to achieve the party's ends, but confusing the sole act that occurs a few times (at best) per year for a variety of offices as the entirety of what a party does is missing the forest for a tree.
In that context (and you are welcome to suggest that I misunderstand the role of political parties in a large representative democracy/republic), explain to me how individuals organize in a way to advocate for candidates and issues that is permissible on your view but is substantively different than a political party.
I'm not sure if I'd call it to become religionized. In a way it's the opposite, people who believed in the government/politics/democracy having their faith in the system erased. So it's more like a religious person becoming an atheist. Revolutions happen because of desperation when people who have nothing to lose lose it. Hence it's not just that something dear is threatened. You can have a lot that is important to you threatened and you will tolerate it, if you have something more important to lose. Starting from things like your freedom or your life. A lot of people can tolerate dictatorships as they fear more what will happen to them and their loved ones. Hence you can have system where everybody doesn't believe in the system, but the system just carries on. Hence dictatorships can unravel very quickly basically without bloodshed when that fear evaporates away.
To resort to violence there simply is a firm conviction that dialogue doesn't work, nothing will change things without resorting to violence. If a person individually thinks so while nobody else agrees with him, he is a madman. If a group of people think so, they are terrorists. If a large part of the population think so, it's called a revolution or civil war.
Quoting Gnomon
More like political discussion becomes a lithurgy, one basically has to declare one's true faith by following the lithurgy. It is a religion in the way that people aren't open to other ideas, they hold them as issues of faith.
Yes. I was using the notion of "Religion" loosely, to refer to the communal sense of us-versus-them, not to any particular god-model. For example, Hitler was not literally worshipped as a god, but he was exalted as "der Fuhrer", leader of the Aryan "Folk" (chosen people). In a similar manner, the dictator of North Korea is addressed, not as a functionary Prime Minister, but as "dear leader" or "father of the people", reflecting the pre-communism Emperor worship. :smile:
PS__This thread reminded me of another parallel between Political and Religious societies. Both require some means of maintaining loyalty to the sovereignty of the realm. In modern literate establishments, that central authority is typically a written Constitution or Bible. In a constitutional political system, Police are required to regulate ethical behavior. And a biblical social system must have priests to interpret the laws and to regulate moral behavior.
In both cases, a systemic bias toward either common Law or individual Freedom can affect the justice & fairness of the organization. Secret police and Inquisition courts are inherently inclined toward defense of the ruling regime. But "defunded police" and lax courts tend toward anarchy and system collapse. Hence, the ongoing struggle between too-much and not-enough integrity of the Body Politic. In over-simplified terms, we call it Conservative versus Liberal politics. :cool:
I'm currently reading a novel that describes British politics prior to WWII. And it illustrates the internal divisions of the Left wing --- between A> Traditional Middle-class Liberals, B> the lower-class Labour Party, and C> the upstart Communist Party. Their dithering & quibbling allowed the Conservative upper-class Royalist Party (Lords) to ignore ominous German & Russian aggression. Eventually, allowing Britain to be sucked into the hostilities after it was almost too late to stop the partitioning of Europe between Fascist & Communist governments. It took a holocaust, and near annihilation of Britain, for them to put aside their partisanship, and jump into the middle of the fray, in defense of Home & Hearth, both Hovel and Castle. :meh:
PS__The modest "virtue" of weak multi-party rule, compared with strong dictatorships, is that most official policies are watered-down from my-way-or-the-highway extremism to namby-pamby moderation. Thereby maintaining a dynamic state of peace & stability. But for those who feel their backs are against the wall, moderation is capitulation. Before the rise of Democracy there was only one party : one-man-rule. That kept things simple, but change (progress for some) could only be achieved by violent overthrow (win-lose), as in the Game of Thrones. The "successful party" was the one that could impose its will on the others (e.g. the one with the most dragons). The modern alternative is to allow all parties to win a little here & there. A win-win political strategy. :blush:
FWIW, Our two political parties are not simply polarized Black & White, or Red & Blue. This article illustrates that the "Great Divide" is much more complex. It seems that the actual problem is a shrinking moderate position, for finding common ground. I don't envy the politicians trying to pander to their constituency. :wink:
Beyond Red vs. Blue: The Political Typology
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/11/09/beyond-red-vs-blue-the-political-typology-2/?utm_source=pocket-newtab
To understand his explanation, imagine a government with five senators voting on a divisive issue, with a split 2:2:1. The single person has the most power by allying with one group or the other, but the lowest likelihood of winning another election after changing sides, because someone totally aligned with either one group or the other will get more popular votes. Hence it inevitably becomes a biparty system with a 3:2 split.
OIne would think increasing the senate size would stop this happening. But it doesn't. What happens is small groups accumulate and build up to the same result. For example, with 7 senators, one gets a split 2:2:3. the two groups of two can stop one person from the group of 3 controlling the swing vote by ganging together to make 4:3.
It transpires, emprically, Aristotle's observation holds true for at least a hundred. Somewhere between that and the size of the House in the USA it starts to break down, but I never saw a mathematical analysis of it. Chance for someone to make a fortune publishing it, as no one reads Aristotle any more. lol.
It creates the perverse outcome that ideologically allied parties are each other's GREATEST ENEMIES, simply because they will steal votes from each other. Which means the entrenched party will do everything it can to crush the upstart. While the voting public understand the risk of choosing the less powerful of the two ideologically aligned parties.
This inevitably leads to two entrenched and increasingly dysfunctional zombie parties. Because no matter how toxic and diseased they become, there is no redress, they cannot be killed.
Interestingly, the Trump era, culminating in Jan 6, gave the Democrats the perfect opportunity to destroy their nominal enemy once and for all. But they chose not to, and as a result they and America has a real monster on its hands. The decent of America into outright fascism is now very much on the table.
:rofl:
[quote=excerpt from President George Washington's Farewell Address (1796)]I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.[/quote]
(Emphases are mine.)
https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=15&page=transcript