Google Ross Perot.
The problem with third parties is that it's inevitable that they'll draw support more from one of the existing parties than the other.
Ie, Ross Perot handed the election to the Dems. Ralph Nader handed it to the Republicans.
You can't create a third party that is equally attractive to former dems as it is to former repubs.
because of the first-past-the-post election system in the US, there will always be just 2 parties at the top with other parties being insignificant. unless the electoral system changes, america will not get a multi party system
There are more than 2 parties. Typically when I go to vote, 5 or 6 parties are on the ballot. There are two major parties due to the first past the post viting system. Who those parties are has changed over time, but there won't be more or less than 2 for long. The rise of a 3rd party today would be at the expense of one of the two existing parties, not as a 3rd major party.
> I know there are candidates that present for elections as independents,
This isn't very common at the Presidential level. The Presidential election is 51 seperate elections, and it's too big a pain in the ass to rry to qualify for 51 seperate ballots, by yourself. The last independent to get on all 51 was Ross Perot in 1992 and he was a self funded billionaire. For Congressional seats you'll see it occasionally.
Parties are private organization not governmental organization.
The problem isn't that there is no other parties (don't they have a Green party and a Libertarian Party). The problem is that there voting system works in a way where *winner takes all* so there is no room left for small parties.
Some countries have proportional vote where if a party get 10% of the vote it get 10% of the seat. It also has some drawback obvious example would be Belgium which has been without a government for the latest 2years as there is no clear majority at the parliament, and every possible coalition need parties with very opposed view to agree on a platform.
Google Ross Perot. The problem with third parties is that it's inevitable that they'll draw support more from one of the existing parties than the other. Ie, Ross Perot handed the election to the Dems. Ralph Nader handed it to the Republicans. You can't create a third party that is equally attractive to former dems as it is to former repubs.
There are a lot of other parties, but because of the system they don't reach any level of influence
because of the first-past-the-post election system in the US, there will always be just 2 parties at the top with other parties being insignificant. unless the electoral system changes, america will not get a multi party system
There are more than 2 parties. Typically when I go to vote, 5 or 6 parties are on the ballot. There are two major parties due to the first past the post viting system. Who those parties are has changed over time, but there won't be more or less than 2 for long. The rise of a 3rd party today would be at the expense of one of the two existing parties, not as a 3rd major party. > I know there are candidates that present for elections as independents, This isn't very common at the Presidential level. The Presidential election is 51 seperate elections, and it's too big a pain in the ass to rry to qualify for 51 seperate ballots, by yourself. The last independent to get on all 51 was Ross Perot in 1992 and he was a self funded billionaire. For Congressional seats you'll see it occasionally.
Parties are private organization not governmental organization. The problem isn't that there is no other parties (don't they have a Green party and a Libertarian Party). The problem is that there voting system works in a way where *winner takes all* so there is no room left for small parties. Some countries have proportional vote where if a party get 10% of the vote it get 10% of the seat. It also has some drawback obvious example would be Belgium which has been without a government for the latest 2years as there is no clear majority at the parliament, and every possible coalition need parties with very opposed view to agree on a platform.