Nevertheless, why are there just two parties in the US? — Inplainsight

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.

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).

. . .

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. — Harry Hindu

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?

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. — I like sushi

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.

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.. — Gnomon

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.

There are only two parties in American democracy for the simple reason that those who created it realized, much to our benefit, that given any issue, only two voices matter - those for and those against. Vote abstention is possible and practiced even in a 2-party system. In short, we have all the advantages of a democracy with none of the downsides of a multi-party democracy which, to my reckoning, adds another layer of complexity confusion to politics. :grin:

Frankly, I don't understand why the US makes such a big deal of China's one-party system. Like Christopher Hitchens once remarked about monotheism - they're getting closer to the true/real number/figure (zero).

What Oliver5 said. It's a mechanical result of the first part the post system. You vote for the people who have the best chance of defeating who you don't like, because who you do like is too small ever to win. The result is two parties. UK is basically the same.

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.

There are only two parties in American democracy for the simple reason that those who created it realized, much to our benefit, that given any issue, only two voices matter - those for and those against. Vote abstention is possible and practiced even in a 2-party system. In short, we have all the advantages of a democracy with none of the downsides of a multi-party democracy which, to my reckoning, adds another layer of complexity confusion to politics. :grin: — TheMadFool

Do you really think that?

Do you really think that? — bert1

How does what I said score on the plausibility scale?

Very low. :) My ironometer clearly wasn't working this morning.

Very low. :) My ironometer clearly wasn't working this morning. — bert1

What do you think is wrong with it (what I said)?

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. — I like sushi

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.

What do you make of India's multi-party democracy? It seems completely bogged down by communalism, religious intolerance, ethnic & caste differences, all of these manifesting themselves as distinct political parties. It seems as though the rule of thumb is if there's a difference, there's a separate political party.

Just like "saving the Earth", "abandoning nationhood" is only doable if EVERYONE does it. — Harry Hindu

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.

It's good to have more choices but sometimes it's better to have fewer choices. There must be a Greek myth that deals with the problem of infinite choices. Anyone have any info on that?

One issue: there's no representation for some positions. Lets say you are in favour of huge reduction in the US military in favour of programmes of social welfare. And lets say you are in favour of electoral reform. And in favour of a universal basic income. Who should you vote for?

One issue: there's no representation for some positions. Lets say you are in favour of huge reduction in the US military in favour of programmes of social welfare. And lets say you are in favour of electoral reform. And in favour of a universal basic income. Who should you vote for? — bert1

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!

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. — Ennui Elucidator

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.

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? — Ennui Elucidator

Truly progressive ideas don't usually have a precedence in history. That's why their progressive.

Truly progressive ideas don't usually have a precedence in history. That's why their progressive. — Harry Hindu

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?

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 like sushi

Sounds more to me that you simply surround yourself with like-minded individuals that reinforce this belief.

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? — Ennui Elucidator

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.

What ‘belief’? Historically the idea of ‘nation,’ today, is a relatively new idea. National identity was basically framed on the language you spoke rather than the piece of land you lived on. Passports never used to exist either. These are facts not beliefs?

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.

What ‘belief’? Historically the idea of ‘nation,’ today, is a relatively new idea. National identity was basically framed on the language you spoke rather than the piece of land you lived on. Passports never used to exist either. These are facts not beliefs? — I like sushi

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.

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? — Inplainsight

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.

I think I could be fine with single-issue political parties. — Harry Hindu

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.

The worst option is that democracy is replaced by guns without any trace to a democratic system. — ssu

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.

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 — Ennui Elucidator

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.

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. — Harry Hindu

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.

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. — Gnomon

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.

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. — 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.