[gradient]

Being a Canadian, I've always found it very strange that there are only two parties vying for power in the US. I hear lots of people saying that they wish there were better alternative candidates to vote for but aside from the rare and fringe independents there never are more then two when all is said and done. Why is this? What do you Americans think it would take to get a bonafide 3rd (or 4th) political party off the ground that would actually win seats in the Senate and Congress and challenge for the White House?

[Warren Pease]

A miracle from god, which I don't see happening anytime soon...

Everytime, I've voted, I've voted third-party just in the hopes that they (Libertarian/Green) will become a stronger party. Unfortunately, I don't think that Americans can get past the team/tribe mentality that the entrenched American two-party system embodies.

While I don't see much difference between the Democratic Candidate hopefuls this election cyle, the fact that many Republicans are so unhappy with McCain't-R, their parties nominee, that they actively advocate for the election of their opponents nominee is telling. They would rather vote for someone farther from their principles than a possible third-party, aka non-Republican Party-sacntioned Independant/Libertarian candidate, who may actually share more in common with their views. They would rather play the victim and hope to say 'i told you so' than actually stand for their own beliefs, no matter how unpopular they are.

If you don't like your parties candidate (Coulter, Limbaugh, et al.) find one that you do like and advocate for them. Or you can just fall in line, swallow your pride, and hope that the next time the taste isn't so bitter.

[vmarks]

It isn't a tribe mentality.

It's a ballot access problem.

When California held the recall and then vote for Governor, which Schwarzenegger eventually won, one of the concerns was that there were too many people filing to run, and that no voter would ever know how to pick a candidate from the field.

This proved to be incorrect.

Yet, a lot of states have ballot access laws that have registered voter signature requirements and in some cases the signatures have to be above a certain percent if the party attempting to get on to the ballot had a presidential candidate - a percentage based on how much percent of the vote that canididate got. These are laws decided on by both Republicans and Democrats.

In 2003 North Carolina had a bill to relax these requirements. It was killed in committee - it's easier to retain power if you collude to limit the field. That's bipartisanship!

[gradient]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Yet, a lot of states have ballot access laws that have registered voter signature requirements and in some cases the signatures have to be above a certain percent if the party attempting to get on to the ballot had a presidential candidate - a percentage based on how much percent of the vote that canididate got.

Can you clarify what you mean by that? Link, maybe?

[Chuckit]

I say we bring back the Bull Moose Party.

[nader2008]

The Green Party is making much progress... as the Democrats self destruct I think the chances for Nader and the Greens this fall continue to improve markedly.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by gradient 

Can you clarify what you mean by that? Link, maybe?

Ballot access - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

It isn't a tribe mentality.

It's a ballot access problem.

...caused by a tribe mentality.

[Cold Warrior]

A lot of it is driven by our predominant single member district (SMD) system. In SMD, it's winner-take-all, e.g., if the top vote winner is only 30% from a field of 30, 25, 20, 15, and 10, that individual gets all delegates. This is also the case with many state House seats: single-member districts, where the winner gets a seat in the House. In other places (like many in Europe), seats in Parliament are awarded by plurality: if a niche party wins 5% of the vote, they get 5% of the seats.

SMD has generally been the norm in the United States.

The SMD system weeds out those that cannot consistently achieve widespread support.

Personally I prefer that system to one where the national agenda could be held hostage by a single city that might account for 5% of the nationwide vote, thus getting 5% of the Congressional seats. It's also why I like the Electoral College system, which keeps presidential elections from being ruled by a few states.

[vmarks]

two tribes that agree to not allow other tribes.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

A lot of it is driven by our predominant single member district (SMD) system. In SMD, it's winner-take-all, e.g., if the top vote winner is only 30% from a field of 30, 25, 20, 15, and 10, that individual gets all delegates. This is also the case with many state House seats: single-member districts, where the winner gets a seat in the House. In other places (like many in Europe), seats in Parliament are awarded by plurality: if a niche party wins 5% of the vote, they get 5% of the seats.

SMD has generally been the norm in the United States.

The SMD system weeds out those that cannot consistently achieve widespread support.

Personally I prefer that system to one where the national agenda could be held hostage by a single city that might account for 5% of the nationwide vote, thus getting 5% of the Congressional seats. It's also why I like the Electoral College system, which keeps presidential elections from being ruled by a few states.

Single Member district is fine. Winner takes all is fine. Think beyond just the Presidential race currently under way, and expand to Congressional, State, and local races.

Neither SMD or winner take all require that candidates must be R or D, that in a general election you must only choose among two candidates.

Ballot access law restricts the number and party affiliation of those who would appear on a ballot. Commonly the excuse is that more choices would overwhelm the voter. This proved to be false in the 2003 CA gubernatorial recall election.

[Cold Warrior]

SMD isn't forcing the R/D choice. It's a sort of political ecosystem where only a couple parties can exist at the top of the food chain. SMD creates an environment where there are no scraps left over to sustain the niche parties. They just fade away into extinction.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by gradient 

Being a Canadian, I've always found it very strange that there are only two parties vying for power in the US.

Of course, even in Canada at the national level, we really only have 2 major parties as well. The New Democrats are almost a fringe party at 10% of the seats and the Bloc Québécois is a regional separatist party that doesn't really count since, by their own definition, they could never form the government.

[SpaceMonkey]

It would probably come about by some cataclysmic issue that would split either the Democratic or Republican Party, rather than the growth of some entirely new party. This is what happened to the Whig Party over the slavery issue before the 1856 election, leading to the formation of the Republican Party out of (largely) northern, anti-slavery Whigs.

[gradient]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Of course, even in Canada at the national level, we really only have 2 major parties as well. The New Democrats are almost a fringe party at 10% of the seats and the Bloc Québécois is a regional separatist party that doesn't really count since, by their own definition, they could never form the government.

You're of course right in some ways - we do have two parties that traditionally get the majority of the vote, however it's much different in the US and it could be argued that the Conservative Party we have today is not at all the same party it was two decades ago since it's merger with the Reform Party.

In Canada we do have a long standing tradition of grass roots politics being accepted in the mainstream, not just by voters but by the media. Not only have grass roots parties garnered some votes, but in the case of the Reform Party, they started as an unknown and went on, in a relatively short time, to merge with a dying Conservative Party to win the Federal Election.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by gradient 

... it could be argued that the Conservative Party we have today is not at all the same party it was two decades ago since it's merger with the Reform Party.

True, but then, you could also argue that the Conservative Party is the same party it was before the Reformers split away.

[gradient]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

True, but then, you could also argue that the Conservative Party is the same party it was before the Reformers split away.

You're wrong there. The Reform/Canadian Alliance party may have eventually drawn largely from the Conservative Party's voter base but they were never a faction of the Conservative Party. They were a small grass-roots party that, over the span of 10 years, grew to dominate federal politics in Western Canada. Ultimately their failure to win votes in Eastern Canada, along with the sinking fortunes of the Conservative Party in Western Canada, led the two parties to merge.

I haven't seen any remotely similar shifts of political clout in the US and I'm curious why.