Would a multiparty system in the US result in right-wing dominance?

[Deleted]

What everyone seems to be ignoring is the fact that under the current winner-takes-it-all system in place in the US, there is literally no place for a third party. Even if any split were to happen, it would just take a few years until it were back to two major parties. For a true multiparty system every vote needs to count.

To use Sweden as an example, in the last election, the biggest party (Social Democrats) got 31.01% of the popular vote, which got them 113 seats in parliament, which is 32.38% of the seats. The second biggest party (Moderate Party) got 23.33% of the popular vote, resulting in 84 seats, which is 24.06% of the seats. I could keep going but I'm pretty sure you see where I'm going with this. If Sweden instead used the same system as the US, the Social Democrats would get something like 75% of the seats, which would be grossly unrepresentative (check this map to see why (yellow party is the Sweden Democrats, the third biggest party): http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...valet_2014.png )

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

In watching the SNP wipe out Labor in the UK elections this week, I had a vision of what a true multiparty system in the US would look like.

Currently, the US has two major parties:

1. The Republicans (right-wing)
2. The Democrats (left-wing)

But if a true multiparty emerged to replace this, what would be dividing lines? I'm thinking race would be the obvious one.

3. African Americans would quickly form their own party. Many would leave the democrat party. They would win elections in major urban areas.
4. Latinos would quickly form their own party. They would start winning elections in the American Southwest (California, Arizona, Texas, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado). Many would leave the democrat party.
5. Some libertarians would leave the GOP to form their own party.

In the end, the map would probably be:

1. Democrats in control in the Northeast from Maine to Virginia to parts of Pennsylvania, plus some spots in the Great Lakes, and the Great Northwest from Washington State thru Oregon into parts of northern California.
2. The African-American party would cut into Democrat territory by taking urban areas. Republicans would be unaffected by this.
3. The Latino party would cut DEEP into Democrat territory in Southern California, as well as Colorado and Arizona. They'd cut a little bit into GOP territory in Texas and Florida.
4. The GOP would control the Deep South, Florida, most of the Midwest and from Texas to the Dakotas and Idaho, plus they'd definitely get dealt back into California politics as the Democrats and Latinos parties would split the formerly homogeneous vote they currently enjoy in the two-party system.

In the end, the Democrat party would get totally fractured into 3 smaller parties. The GOP would emerge as the largest party. The GOP would oscillate between winning a majority outright and needing a coalition with one of the minor parties to form a government. Maybe once in a while, the Democrats could BRIEFLY break through and form a very weak government that would have a short life and get swept away very quickly.

What do you think?

Why do you think the multiparty system would be based around ethnic groups? Those aren't political distinctions. Your opinion on how the democratic party would fracture into ethnic groups is borderline racist.

[Xeones]

Why do you think the multiparty system would be based around ethnic groups? Those aren't political distinctions. Your opinion on how the democratic party would fracture into ethnic groups is borderline racist.

I don't even consider it borderline. I opened this thread and almost didn't post because all I could do was face palm at the blatantly racist shit. "Oh yea all black people think the same way and all latin people think the same way".

He doesn't even see the divide in the republican party between the theocrats, the elite, the scared, and the rational and then just boils the democratic divides down exclusively to race ignoring the fact that the party isn't even left wing. One of the first divides that would probably happen if democrats split would be to give us an actual left wing party.

[Kasierith]

What everyone seems to be ignoring is the fact that under the current winner-takes-it-all system in place in the US, there is literally no place for a third party. Even if any split were to happen, it would just take a few years until it were back to two major parties. For a true multiparty system every vote needs to count.

Never really denied that. I was focusing on an active division that is a direct result of the Republicans pandering to their social conservatives to the exclusion of their economic conservatives who happen to have libertarian social views. In other words, for some reason a good number of Republicans don't like Bachmann saying things like Obama's gay policies are bringing about the Rapture. They have an odd notion that politics should be focused on political issues rather than grandstanding for scrapping for election votes. If the divide reaches fruition, the Republican party is going to take a major thrashing for several consecutive nationals until it stabilizes, probably on the side of the libertarians since every year more baby boomers die.

[Flutterguy]

Umm, no.

Think of it like this.

In the current Republican Party, you have:
A: Wealthy Conservatives- aka Fiscal Republicans
B: Traditional Republicans - aka RINO
C: Former Confederates - aka Reagan Republicans
D: Modern Christian Fascists - Tea party
E: Libertarians who stay republican

With Democrats you have:
A: Unions
B: Civil Rights - Former North East Republicans
C: Moderate Conservatives terrified of the state of the Republican Party
D: Wealthy Liberals
E: Radical SJWs/Hippies

If there was a way to break up the hold of the two party system, the vast majority of Americans would fall in the Moderate Conservative group who are currently switching to Democrat.

Who are the moderate conservatives in the Democratic party right now? This should be good.

[Deleted]

What everyone seems to be ignoring is the fact that under the current winner-takes-it-all system in place in the US, there is literally no place for a third party. Even if any split were to happen, it would just take a few years until it were back to two major parties. For a true multiparty system every vote needs to count.

To use Sweden as an example, in the last election, the biggest party (Social Democrats) got 31.01% of the popular vote, which got them 113 seats in parliament, which is 32.38% of the seats. The second biggest party (Moderate Party) got 23.33% of the popular vote, resulting in 84 seats, which is 24.06% of the seats. I could keep going but I'm pretty sure you see where I'm going with this. If Sweden instead used the same system as the US, the Social Democrats would get something like 75% of the seats, which would be grossly unrepresentative (check this map to see why (yellow party is the Sweden Democrats, the third biggest party): http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...valet_2014.png )

I don't fully understand the US voting or political system.

However the UK is divided into 650 parliamentary constituencies with a similar winner-takes-all system in place. Whichever party candidate gets the most votes wins that seat and becomes MP for that constituency with the other votes being essentially discounted.

Whilst there are two major parties who control the majority of the seats there are numerous smaller parties who win seats and have the power to shape the political landscape.

This was particularly evident in the 2010 election when no party had the required seats to form a majority government (326+). The largest major party had to enter into a coalition with a minor party in order to boost their seats to the required level and in return for this pact of support the minor party managed to get the government to adopt a number of their own policies.

Whilst coalition are a rather extreme example and a very rare occurence in British politics it's still possible for smaller parties to have their voice heard in parliament. In the recent 2015 election, the Conservatives managed to win a very slim majority of 331 seats meaning they can govern alone providing all their party members vote together as one. However with such a slim majority (only 6 seats) any slight rebellion from party members could easily mean votes and laws being blocked.

[Mihalik]

What do you think?

You assume that the main common point people have is race. It doesn't really work like that.

Not all Latinos identify profoundly with other Latinos. Not all Blacks share opinions on a wide range of subjects.

Latinos in Florida don't share opinions on all issues with Latinos in California. It just doesn't work like that. You are making sweeping and illogical generalizations.

The inability of the GOP to attract Black, Latino or Female vote is not tied to people being Black, Latino or Female. It is has to do with the GOP's obsession with trying to force massive generalized ideologies on huge numbers of people with varied interests.

Basically the GOP is too focused on what makes people different than on what they have in common. And this is also obvious in your hairbrained idea that race alone is sufficient for people with massively varied political ideologies to all flock to a party that has no reasonable way to actually fit all those interests together.

[Noradin]

Seen from anywhere outside the US the system is already dominated by the right-wing (both Republicans and Democrats would satisfy the definition of right-wing in almost every country but the US).

[Mihalik]

Who are the moderate conservatives in the Democratic party right now? This should be good.

The entire Democratic establishment is conservative. Fiscally. Everyone ranging from Hillary Clinton to Obama himself.

If you actually measure the Democratic parties political alignment by their legislative record they fit into the Conservative model PERFECTLY.

The problem is that the GOP is changing the very meaning of Conservative by moving it so far right that it already fell of the edge of the scale. Today's Democrats are pre 2000's Republicans policy wise.

[Noradin]

The entire Democratic establishment is conservative. Fiscally. Everyone ranging from Hillary Clinton to Obama himself.

If you actually measure the Democratic parties political alignment by their legislative record they fit into the Conservative model PERFECTLY.

The problem is that the GOP is changing the very meaning of Conservative by moving it so far right that it already fell of the edge of the scale. Today's Democrats are pre 2000's Republicans policy wise.

Yes, they are "conservative" not "moderate conservative".

- - - Updated - - -

The entire Democratic establishment is conservative. Fiscally. Everyone ranging from Hillary Clinton to Obama himself.

If you actually measure the Democratic parties political alignment by their legislative record they fit into the Conservative model PERFECTLY.

The problem is that the GOP is changing the very meaning of Conservative by moving it so far right that it already fell of the edge of the scale. Today's Democrats are pre 2000's Republicans policy wise.

Yes, they are "conservative" not "moderate conservative".

[Soulwind]

If you think the democrats are left wing, you need to travel abroad more. You guys already have two right wing parties, one more conservative, one more moderate.

That said, I don't know if the US would benefit from a multiparty system, it would probably divide one of the parties more than the other. The party with the most loyal/fanatic voters would remain stronger.

[Kalis]

HOWEVER, what we saw in the UK in 2015 was the Scottish racial group effectively split off from Labor. Labor is defunct in this alignment. They cannot form a stable government without Scotland. Labor is now reduced to either permanent opposition status, or perhaps BRIEFLY forming a weak coalition government.

There is no 'Scottish racial group'. The split between the SNP and Labour in Scotland is political, not racial - they're all Scottish.

I think you may be confused by their name, the Scottish National Party (SNP) aren't nationalists in the sense that the British National Party (BNP) are. The SNP are socialists who think Labour aren't socialist enough or working hard enough for the benefit of people living in Scotland, whereas the BNP hate foreigners.

[Mihalik]

'Scottish racial group'.

I loled so hard.

How to spot someone of the Scottish Race.

[Jaxi]

If you think the democrats are left wing, you need to travel abroad more. You guys already have two right wing parties, one more conservative, one more moderate.

If we are going to talk strictly about a scale to measure American political parties within our nation alone, it would be silly to arbitrarily set moderate based off of a European model. In regards to the American system, "right" and "left" are relative to us. That's what is going on. Now, if you want to compare us to Europe, then by all means use a European standard.

[Grummgug]

I don't even consider it borderline. I opened this thread and almost didn't post because all I could do was face palm at the blatantly racist shit. "Oh yea all black people think the same way and all latin people think the same way".

He doesn't even see the divide in the republican party between the theocrats, the elite, the scared, and the rational and then just boils the democratic divides down exclusively to race ignoring the fact that the party isn't even left wing. One of the first divides that would probably happen if democrats split would be to give us an actual left wing party.

That's an incredibly ignorant and insulting accusation to make!

As I said, the 2015 UK election showed how one ethnic group can bond together and form a voting bloc under its own party flag with SNP.

I'm not creating a situation randomly out of thin air. This isn't racism (and you should be ashamed for even suggesting that). This is based on taking real life events that took place this past week in the UK and applying those lessons to the US.

[Spectral]

The current primary contender to the dual party system is the division of the Republican party into libertarians and social conservatives. A formation of the third party would be immensely beneficial to the democrats right now.

Your suggested divisions don't really follow with current trends in national politics.

I think you're underestimating the divides that exist between Democrat constituents. There's a set of old-school union types and urban black/Hispanic people that's actually pretty socially conservative. While the far more left-wing, educated wing of the party caucuses with these groups due to economic agreement, they can barely conceal their contempt for the black and Hispanic Christians when things like Prop 8 in California come up.

[Mihalik]

That's an incredibly ignorant and insulting accusation to make!

As I said, the 2015 UK election showed how one ethnic group can bond together and form a voting bloc under its own party flag with SNP.

I'm not creating a situation randomly out of thin air. This isn't racism (and you should be ashamed for even suggesting that). This is based on taking real life events that took place this past week in the UK and applying those lessons to the US.

I think you may be confused by their name, the Scottish National Party (SNP) aren't nationalists in the sense that the British National Party (BNP) are. The SNP are socialists who think Labour aren't socialist enough or working hard enough for the benefit of people living in Scotland, whereas the BNP hate foreigners.

As Kalis kindly explained above.

You can't compare the events in Scotland to the American political landscape. The SNP in Scotland is a REGIONAL movement. Not an ethnic or ideological one.

This issue in the US solves itself as there is no enforced party discipline. The representative of New York while being a Democrat can easily vote with the Republicans on issues where his state aligns with Republican interests and vice versa.

[MerinPally]

That's an incredibly ignorant and insulting accusation to make!

As I said, the 2015 UK election showed how one ethnic group can bond together and form a voting bloc under its own party flag with SNP.

I'm not creating a situation randomly out of thin air. This isn't racism (and you should be ashamed for even suggesting that). This is based on taking real life events that took place this past week in the UK and applying those lessons to the US.

The problem is that the "real life events that took place this past week in the UK" you are talking about, aren't an accurate reflection of what really happened simply because you don't understand what happened and most importantly, why. You're making things up from a position of ignorance, to suit your argument.

[Spectral]

If you think the democrats are left wing, you need to travel abroad more. You guys already have two right wing parties, one more conservative, one more moderate.

The only way this is true is if you put the center squarely as the European center. By world and historic standards, both American parties are pretty centrist. There are individuals on the wings of each party that aren't centrists, but the prominent leadership all favor pretty middle of the road positions on taxes, welfare, and social freedoms by comparison to world and historic standards. Right wing social policy is Saudi Arabia. Right wing policy on individual freedoms is Singapore. The US doesn't have arguments about whether homosexuality should be legal, it has arguments about whether gay marriage should be legal - that's plainly left of the world center.

While Americans make the mistake of thinking that "center" by objective standards is centered on the US, Europeans seem to frequently do the same. What qualifies as "centrist" in Western Europe is very, very far left by world and historic standards.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Would the same people that went from the Democratic Party, to the Republican Party find a way to weasel their way into the libertarians witch bullshit and double talk rhetoric, probably, they are real desperate enough.

The Same seems to be the case with right wingers across Europe as well.


It's like when shitty business fails for whatever reasons because what it's doing is stupid, and wrong and unethical, many times they just change then name and re-brand the same thing.