The two-party stranglehold

[Roy]

In the 2015 UK general election, the two leading parties (Conservative and Labour) received 67.3% of the votes between them.
In the first round of the 2012 French Presidential election, the two leading candidates (Hollande and Sarkozy) received 55.8% of the votes.
In the accompanying parliamentary election, their parties received 78.8% of the votes.
In the 2013 German federal elections, the two main parties received 67.2% of the votes.
In the 2016 Australian election the two main parties received 76.8% of the vote.
In Canada it was 71.3%, in Mexico 66.9%, in Denmark 47.4%, in Spain 50.7%, etc.


In the 2012 US congressional elections the Republican and Democrat candidates received 96.4%.
In the accompanying presidential election, Obama and Romney got 98.2%.

graph.png

Only in the USA have the two main parties achieved such a stranglehold on the electorate. Why have the voters let them?

[robrecht]

It has always been a bit of a mystery to me. Years ago, the specifically two-party system was sometimes claimed to be a fundamental principle of American democracy, almost as if it were enshrined in the Constitution, but, of course, it is not. Part of the idea that was sometimes expressed was that with only two parties, each party was forced to try and successfully dominate the middle, to appeal to a true majority or something like that. I think our two main political parties are much too powerful and do not serve us particularly well any more. The Republican Party seems to be is in the process of imploding and may not survive much longer, but it remains to be seen if another party will simply take its place or if we might have three reasonably powerful parties soon.

[37818]

In polictical science where there is more than two parties, it is possible for a minority party of two major parties to take power, when the majority has divided votes.

[Sparko]

here is how elections work in America:

[Roy]

In polictical science where there is more than two parties, it is possible for a minority party of two major parties to take power, when the majority has divided votes.

Not really. Apart from the existence of voting systems which prevent this (such as STV or multi-round voting), if two factions of the "majority party" are competing for the same votes, they aren't really the same party, and political platforms are sufficiently complex, and cover so many different issues, of varying importance to individual voters, that there is in practice no such thing as a majority that can be divided that way.

[guacamole]

I've always heard it that parliamentary systems reward small parties by forcing larger parties to compromise with them to get enough votes to govern, where as the American system rewards two large parties. I'm not sure I really understand this, but maybe someone with relevant expertise could explain further.

[Cow Poke]

In polictical science where there is more than two parties, it is possible for a minority party of two major parties to take power, when the majority has divided votes.

Only if we scrap the electoral college. I don't see that happening any time soon.

[Sparko]

Only if we scrap the electoral college. I don't see that happening any time soon.

the electoral college is what scares me. we keep worrying about voter fraud. but in the end the votes don't really matter, it is what the electors decide. So control the electoral college and control the vote.

[One Bad Pig]

the electoral college is what scares me. we keep worrying about voter fraud. but in the end the votes don't really matter, it is what the electors decide. So control the electoral college and control the vote.

IIRC the only time an elector went against the vote of his state was in the early 1800s, and he did it so that George Washington would remain the only president to garner every single electoral vote.

[Sparko]

IIRC the only time an elector went against the vote of his state was in the early 1800s, and he did it so that George Washington would remain the only president to garner every single electoral vote.

well this election is so divisive that I can see an elector hating Trump or even Hillary so much that they vote against them and for the other, despite what their state votes.

[Faber]

I can think of a few nations that have only one political party, and they get 100% of the votes.

[rogue06]

IIRC the only time an elector went against the vote of his state was in the early 1800s, and he did it so that George Washington would remain the only president to garner every single electoral vote.

More than that

Source: Faithless elector: History

On 22 occasions, 179 electors have not cast their votes for President or Vice President as prescribed by the legislature of the state they represented. Of those, 71 electors changed their votes because the candidate to whom they were pledged died before the electoral ballot (1872, 1912). Two electors chose to abstain from voting for any candidate (1812, 2000).[2] The remaining 106 were changed by the elector's personal interest, or perhaps by accident. Usually, the faithless electors act alone. An exception was the 1836 election, in which all 23 Virginia electors acted together.

That election was the only occasion when faithless electors altered the outcome of the electoral college vote. The Democrat ticket won states with 170 of the 294 electoral votes, but the 23 Virginia electors abstained in the vote for Vice President, so the Democrat candidate, Richard Mentor Johnson, got only 147 (exactly half), and was not elected. However, Johnson was instead elected Vice President by the U.S. Senate, so faithless electors have never changed the final outcome of an election.



Source

© Copyright Original Source

[Cow Poke]

I can think of a few nations that have only one political party, and they get 100% of the votes.

Yes, even when they don't.

[One Bad Pig]

More than that

Source: Faithless elector: History

On 22 occasions, 179 electors have not cast their votes for President or Vice President as prescribed by the legislature of the state they represented. Of those, 71 electors changed their votes because the candidate to whom they were pledged died before the electoral ballot (1872, 1912). Two electors chose to abstain from voting for any candidate (1812, 2000).[2] The remaining 106 were changed by the elector's personal interest, or perhaps by accident. Usually, the faithless electors act alone. An exception was the 1836 election, in which all 23 Virginia electors acted together.

That election was the only occasion when faithless electors altered the outcome of the electoral college vote. The Democrat ticket won states with 170 of the 294 electoral votes, but the 23 Virginia electors abstained in the vote for Vice President, so the Democrat candidate, Richard Mentor Johnson, got only 147 (exactly half), and was not elected. However, Johnson was instead elected Vice President by the U.S. Senate, so faithless electors have never changed the final outcome of an election.



Source

© Copyright Original Source

Interesting.

[Sparko]

rogue, I think we should bribe the electors with lots of bacon so we can win the election. Much easier than having to spend millions on a campaign.