Why is their only two major parties in the U.S?

[TripleA]

Why is like this. Democrats and Republicans are pretty much the only powerful groups in american politics. But why is their no other major party with a different ideology.

[9erempiree]

There are actually a bunch of different parties but they are not popular. It is hard to change a 2 party system that was implemented hundred of years ago. The 2 party system is too black and white and people usually side with one or the other because a majority of the country is split between these two.

Too many little parties take up a small portion of the population and they are scattered. If everyone got together and formed an independent party then we can abolish the two party system.

[Patrick Chewing]

The Tea Party tried to be a party but immediately were smeared as racists by the Democrats. The Republican party gets smeared as racists on a daily basis by the Democratic party. It's very clear which party wants to be the only party standing. This is why we don't have other parties. They get bullied into non-existence by Liberal lies.

[imnew09]

There are:facepalm

Those who dislike the both major party demo and republican , they could vote for the third party. Only issue is that third party has very little chance of winning because the two major party has been around for many yrs and it has been consistent to some point

[Droid101]

The Tea Party tried to be a party but immediately were smeared as racists by the Democrats.
We're sorry for quoting them directly?

http://www.motherjones.com/files/imagecache/node-gallery-display/photoessays/teapartyniggar2.jpg

http://aattp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/racist-obama-lying-african.jpg

http://www.freewoodpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/TeaPartyRacism.png

And the classic:

http://vote.colorofchange.org/media/uploads/blog/put_the_white_back_in_whitehouse-vertical.jpg

Bu bu bu but the liberals are twisting our words!!

[TripleA]

There are:facepalm

Those who dislike the both major party demo and republican , they could vote for the third party. Only issue is that third party has very little chance of winning because the two major party has been around for many yrs and it has been consistent to some point

By major mean able to win or get considerable power.

[Patrick Chewing]

All those signs, and none of them say Tea Party. And if you had any brains on you, the topic is the "party", not fringe "supporters" of the party. Tea Party leadership has plenty of African-Americans. Nice try, slick.


Remember all those Bush signs by Liberal kooks like you that wanted him dead or pictured him as Satan? Short-term memory loss and undeniable hypocrisy is a well-known Liberal trait.

[RidonKs]

third parties are hamstrung by lack of access to mainstream media and suffocated by partisan hacks who endlessly bicker about irrelevant nonsense

but two parties are generally useful to maintaining a status quo of stubborn compromise, since it frames issues in a black and white fashion, thus turning politics into a pendulum where for five years it's like this and then for five years its like that. which is nice and placid and works out if the economy is functional.

the unfortunate side effect is that it pushes constructive ideas to the fringe which don't necessarily fit with the agenda of either party. it leaves a lot of popular ideology completely unrepresented in the congress. when you pay too much attention to 'the game', that is republicans vs democrats, you tend to ignore arguments that otherwise might sound perfectly rational.

party politics are a team sport to the extent that party supporters are indoctrinated and dogmatic. we do not want politics to be a team sport. and i think we can all agree one way of defusing the heated rivalry between 'left and right' in the united states is to support alternative parties and inject some diversity into a system that's become completely divided and intransigent.

[Droid101]

All those signs, and none of them say Tea Party. And if you had any brains on you, the topic is the "party", not fringe "supporters" of the party.
Fringe supporters, eh? So... the party isn't racist.... but they're number one with racists?

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/221265/SIMPSONSFOXNEWS.jpg

k




Remember all those Bush signs by Liberal kooks like you that wanted him dead or pictured him as Satan? How is that racist?

[9erempiree]

It's quite obvious a racist is going to side with a party that is conservative but that doesn't mean the party is racist.

Do you honestly think bunch of racists would side with a progressive and liberal party? Think about it.

Just look at all the people calling Trump a racist because he was talking about illegal immigrants. Later to find out he has a bunch of Latinos supporting him.

[RidonKs]

It's quite obvious a racist is going to side with a party that is conservative but that doesn't mean the party is racist.

Do you honestly think bunch of racists would side with a progressive and liberal party? Think about it.
that's the joke limp d!ck

but thanks for providing a retarded explanation nobody needed

[9erempiree]

that's the joke limp d!ck

but thanks for providing a retarded explanation nobody needed

No problem rag head.

Now go shoot your mother because I groped her.

[RidonKs]

No problem rag head.

Now go shoot your mother because I groped her.
you're right who could ever live with themself after that :lol

[Patrick Chewing]

Fringe supporters, eh? So... the party isn't racist.... but they're number one with racists?

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/221265/SIMPSONSFOXNEWS.jpg

k

How is that racist?


Who says they're number one with racists? Where do you fabricate these facts from? The void space in your head?

Unless you poll every single American citizen in this country, you have no basis or factual data to say who's more racist than who or which party has the most racists. Let's not pretend like the Democrats don't have a litany of racists all over the country.

https://dvhu1327i3h2y.cloudfront.net/file/pic/photo/2014/04/11/01/9ecd3c6a88f8bbece4421850eeb4301b_1024.jpg

How is calling Obama a Kenyan racist?? You're one delusional mofo.

[KingBeasley08]

LBJ may have secretly been a racist but he did more for Blacks than any President not named Abraham Lincoln. Dude can call me a n*gger all he wants

At the end of the day...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1957
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1968

Dude managed to get all this shit even though there were a shit ton of racist Dixiecrats in the South

These Southern Democrats got so pissed that they ended up leaving the Democrat Party.. and Nixon and Goldwater turned them into Republicans


That's why people call Republicans racist. The Democrats who opposed Civil Rights decades back are now Republicans

[Droid101]

Who says they're number one with racists? Where do you fabricate these facts from? The void space in your head?

Saying they want the "White" back in the White House, and are voting Romney Ryan, makes it pretty obvious.

However, interpret that however you want smarty pants.

[KevinNYC]

The Tea Party tried to be a party

When did the Tea Party actually try to be a party? Exactly when did this occur?

In which states were they able to get on the ballot?

[KevinNYC]

Why is like this. Democrats and Republicans are pretty much the only powerful groups in american politics. But why is their no other major party with a different ideology.
It basically has to do with the winner take all elections that we have in the us.

It also has to do with the fact that American voters are not spread out evenly on a spectrum, a third party that springs is up is not going to take evenly from one party or the other.

Lets say the American Party gets 50% of the vote and the USA Party gets 50%.
It's really hard to fashion a party that joins the two of them and competes. You are not going to have the Founding Fathers Party get started wind with

American 33%
USA 33%
Founding Fathers 33%

The reality is you are more like to have party spring up on the edge than the center. In a two party system, if there are large numbers of voters in the middle one of the two parties can shift their policies/platform just a little and capture those voters. So if the new third Founding Fathers party sprung up, it's more like to take votes more from one party than the other. So in reality you would wind up with something like this.

USA 47%
American 39%
Founding Fathers 14%

Even though the USA party didn't get 50% this would end up being a landslide victory in a national election.

The most successful recent 3rd party run was in 1992. The winning party won 43% of the vote and the third party won 18.9%

But in the electoral college (the way a president is actually selected) the winning party got 370 votes, the second place party got 168 and the third party got 0 votes.

The election in 2000 came down to Florida and Florida was decided by only 537 votes. The Green Party only got 1.6% of the vote but they almost certainly tipped the to the Republicans and not the Democrats who were their more natural allies.

George W. Bush 2,912,790 48.847% Republican
Al Gore 2,912,253 48.838% Democratic
Ralph Nader 97,488 1.635% Green

So in this case, the third party voters actually weakened the party they were most closely aligned to but disagreed with and strengthened the party they absolutely opposed.

So in a winner take all system, committed political activists (the ones most likely to start a new party) risk putting in a lot of time and effort into something that undermines their political goals. Often, they choose to work within a major party and try to influence their policies.

[KevinNYC]

The opposite to our system is a system like Israel's. Israel's system is direct proportional elections where you vote for a list of candidates. If you are a party that gets above 3.25 of the nationwide vote, you are guaranteed a spot in the Knesset, their representative house. The higher number of votes you get, the more people from your list get in the Knesset.

So if we applied that to the US and took the example above of 1992, the third party would have controlled 19% of the House of Representatives.

However, that is not what happens in Israel. Israel doesn't have 3 parties, it has 34. The low threshold to gaining some power leads to a multiplicity of parties.

We have elections between red and blue. Israel has pink, yellow, purple, orange....

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/03/18/article-doc-168r0-6X7kVWJhM-HSK1-177_634x422.jpg

No single party has ever won a majority of votes, so you always have to form coalitions to lead the government. When these coalitions shift, they often have to call for new elections before the 4 year term has ended.

[DCL]

Why is their only two major parties in the U.S?

stopped reading after 4 words

[Patrick Chewing]

KevinNYC is without a doubt a single man. Borderline virgin.

[KevinNYC]

KevinNYC is without a doubt a single man. Borderline virgin.
That's your response?

You're a wierd-ass dude.

[TheMan]

We're sorry for quoting them directly?

http://www.motherjones.com/files/imagecache/node-gallery-display/photoessays/teapartyniggar2.jpg

http://aattp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/racist-obama-lying-african.jpg

http://www.freewoodpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/TeaPartyRacism.png

And the classic:

http://vote.colorofchange.org/media/uploads/blog/put_the_white_back_in_whitehouse-vertical.jpg

Bu bu bu but the liberals are twisting our words!!
Come on Droid...you know damn well those pics were taken out of context :lol

[NumberSix]

Honestly, it's better than the UK where a party can only get 37% of the vote and win. The government can be controlled by a party that 63% of the voters didn't vote for.