Could the two-party system collapse in the coming decades?

[mot78]

http://www.arbiteronline.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/12/15/3fdd7fd338454

I don't agree with his notion that Dean will become a third-party candidate in 2008, but he does raise a point about the internet's ability to motivate the grassroots and how it can change the political landscape. The last paragraph is quite interesting too.

[K-W]

1. Of course not.

The reason it is a two party system is NOT because of information costs, its because we use singer member districts rather than proportional representation, and because we elect our president in a one vote plurality.

Countries with proportional representation already had more than two parties before the Dean campaign. So clearly his thesis that it was the cost of operating a large organization doesnt make much sense. He also reads way too much into the Dean campaign and what it is doing.

[leftofthedial]

2. I don't see how

although we're already down to about 1.5 parties

[NJCher]

3. very important

Frank Rich did a column in the Dec. 21st issue of the NY Times that examined Ronald Coase's thinking. It was such an insightful article that I saved it.

How Dean has made the Internet work for him is a turning point in American political history.

Remember Bill Clinton playing the sax on the talk shows? Remember how all the other candidates then rushed in to makes themselves "human" on the talk shows?

For those old enough to remember it, Nixon appearing on television with a five o'clock shadow was a stark contrast to the clean shaven, youthful JFK. This moment made American politicians realize the importance of the camera.

These are the moments in political history that mark the changing times.


Cher

[K-W]

6. The Nixon/Kennedy interaction with television did make a turning point

the Clinton Sax performance and howard deans internet use will not. Everyone is blowing it way out of proportion. This will not change the way politics is done in America. It is part of a gradual shift, not an historical event.

[mot78]

9. I agree

what's going on right now with Dean and the internet is only the beginning of a larger grassroots. That said, imagine a scenario in, say the 2020's or 2030's. *'s fiscal irresponsibility with the defecit and Social Security and Medicare cause a massive economic meltdown similar to the Depression or one of the earlier Panics. A group of people who are tired of the inept policies of one of the parties (lets say the Republicans) form their own group via the internet and nominate someone promising to clean up the disaster. He becomes President, and in a few years to decades, the Republicans fragment and become displaced by the new party. This could easily happen with the right conditions in place.

[sasquatch]

4. It will only be down for 20 years max. though

Because the third party will either take over or be absorbed into one of the other party's.

[LibertyorDeath]

5. It all ready has to a large degree

"Could the two-party system collapse in the coming decades?"

The USA is on a course to Dictatorship the signs are all there for
everyone to see.

[K-W]

7. A one party system is possible in our gov. strucure, 3 or more is not

nt

[wanderingbear]

8. Dean wont be the Third Party Canidate this year..

Its likely to be Nader again.. Unless the Liberarians are running some one to.. oh and lets not forget the Patriot party..Let me guess..Pat Bucanan. And then Whos the Free Republic backing,Dont kow yet..

[mikehiggins]

10. The two party system may collapse this November

That is the whole point.

[Crunchy Frog]

11. I think we may be heading

to a one party system.

[cyclezealot]

12. a one party nation

With the role of money I tend to worry if it is possible to have any other party capable of challenging the Repugs. If total regug control limits the ability of unions to raise cash and money continues to be the milk of politicis, I see the Democrats barely able to challenge the repugs.
It all started with Delay's efforts to limit access of committee chairs that donate to both political parties. With congressional gerrymandering placing the Democrats to irrelevance, why would any dontate to them. It is not will we have more than two parties, but will more than one be able to challenge the Repuugs.

[Gore1FL]

13. Not without a change to the Consittution

the election process is mathamatically designed for two candiates.

[markus]

14. Not really designed that way, but...

it tends to work out that way. I don't think there's anything except the time lines to prevent a state from having a Presidential run-off for its electors. Hell, there's nothing to prevent them being appointed by the governor's dog.

The real institutionalization of the two party system is in the legislative branch of the federal (and state) government. No independent can have any real influence unless they agree to affiliate with one of the two parties in power.

And, under the Constitution, nothing can make Congress change their rules. The only wat that can occur is for a "new" party to supplant an old party in the number of members of Congress or the Senate, and to demand representation on Committees.

Even if there were a significant fraction of Greens or Monster Raving Looney Party members, the rump losing party would probably join with the majority party to vote for a leadership that would deny recognition for the new party. The new party would literally have to be able to elect the leadership to establish itself.

That seems to me an impossibly high standard to reach.

[mikehiggins]

15. Not true

it is quite possible for a third or fourth party to have an impact on a Presidential election through the Electoral College system. If nobody goes into the end process with sufficient delegates to win what then? Is the electoral college system based on a plurality or a majority of the delegates. If a plurality, a candidate with fewer than half the delegates could end up the President.

What effect would that have on the candidate's ability to do the job?

We sure wouldn't want the Presidential election to go to the House.

[GreenPartyVoter]

16. We may opt to restructure

our government if enough people see the need for it. No one said we had to maintain it the way we do. This is supposed to be the great experiment, but it's rather stagnant these days.