A 200-party system, what would happen to American Elections?

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-08-03 01:30am

Let's say that America abandons the two-party system, and decides to adopt a system with 200 equally powerful parties for some reason. How would elections work, and how might the electoral college function? With 200 parties, someone could win the popular vote with only .51%, but I think it might end up being a few parties getting most of the votes. the Electoral College might not become feasible with four times as many candidates as states, Perhaps instead of entire states, it would have ot be divided into smaller segments or something.

Just a hypothetical question I thought of, inspired by the number of people (Isn't it over 200) doing the paperwork needed to get on the ballot for the California recall election.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-08-03 01:48am

The US would disintegrate in short order. The whole system would grind to a halt as no could possibly muster enough clout and muscle to do anything. We'd be paralyzed.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-08-03 01:48am

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:Let's say that America abandons the two-party system, and decides to adopt a system with 200 equally powerful parties for some reason. How would elections work, and how might the electoral college function? With 200 parties, someone could win the popular vote with only .51%, but I think it might end up being a few parties getting most of the votes. the Electoral College might not become feasible with four times as many candidates as states, Perhaps instead of entire states, it would have ot be divided into smaller segments or something.

Just a hypothetical question I thought of, inspired by the number of people (Isn't it over 200) doing the paperwork needed to get on the ballot for the California recall election.

It would depend which state you won in. Thankfully, someone could in fact get a mandate of sorts by coming out with a (large plurality?) in several important states, giving them the electoral college.

Actually, there are about two hundred political parties in the USA today. It's just that most of them are not very popular. You should be glad for this, since at least three of them are Phalangist Parties, among other bizzare groups (why the hell does the USA have three Phalangist Parties?), which could conceivable win high office in the above circumstances.

Thankfully, those circumstances would never happen--there's a general trend in our system for parties to coalesce. Both the Republicans and the Democrats are probably like coalitions of between 12-15 identifiable groups that would be independent parties in a European-style parliamentary system.

Alex Moon · Post by **Alex Moon** » 2003-08-03 01:58am

We would end up with 2 parties again pretty quickly. Most of the parties would have slight ideological differences, and would see that it's more advantageous to pool their resources together in order to win elections.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-08-03 02:22am

The first step is the change then nations name to Italy. Then disbanded the federal government once its provides incapable of even pork barrel spending. Libertarians rejoice across the land.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-08-03 03:15am

Both the Republicans and the Democrats are probably like coalitions of between 12-15 identifiable groups that would be independent parties in a European-style parliamentary system.

Interesting comment.

For all of my thinking on politics and government, I never thought much about why the US doesn't have the number of viable, active, national level political parties that some European style parliamentary systems have.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-08-03 09:58am

This would explain why you have relatively sane Democrats like myself sharing a party with nutbars like Al Sharpton.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-08-03 11:04am

I became a Democrat because I was pro-public-education. I believe that private, sectarian and home schools have no right to compete with public schools for public funding (i.e. vouchers). That's why they're "private, sectarian or home" schools. If you want to send your kid to a private school, bully for you. DON'T DO IT ON THE TAXPAYERS' DIME.

Worlds Spanner · Post by **Worlds Spanner** » 2003-08-03 03:37pm

Iceberg wrote:I became a Democrat because I was pro-public-education. I believe that private, sectarian and home schools have no right to compete with public schools for public funding (i.e. vouchers). That's why they're "private, sectarian or home" schools. If you want to send your kid to a private school, bully for you. DON'T DO IT ON THE TAXPAYERS' DIME.

At someone who attended a private school (and my parents payed the entire bill AND thei taces), I entirely agree with you.

Bob McDob · Post by **Bob McDob** » 2003-08-03 06:11pm

I've never been very fond of the two-party system (and indeed I'd like to see parties themselves disbanded, if at all possible), but it does seem like the current two party system is something Americans have chosen by choice - it's not like there's something in the Constitution requiring it. With that in mind, I would focus on asking why Americans in particular are so fond of breaking down political ideology into two sides, "good" (yours) and "evil" (the other guy).

Alan Bolte · Post by **Alan Bolte** » 2003-08-03 11:04pm

Bob McDob wrote:I've never been very fond of the two-party system (and indeed I'd like to see parties themselves disbanded, if at all possible), but it does seem like the current two party system is something Americans have chosen by choice - it's not like there's something in the Constitution requiring it. With that in mind, I would focus on asking why Americans in particular are so fond of breaking down political ideology into two sides, "good" (yours) and "evil" (the other guy).

You have to ask why the sheeple create a black-and-white reality for themselves?

Alan Bolte · Post by **Alan Bolte** » 2003-08-03 11:05pm

Ack, I just thought, you meant why America and not other countries. Well, clueless there.
Damn, and no edit button in N&P.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-08-03 11:10pm

Iceberg wrote:I became a Democrat because I was pro-public-education. I believe that private, sectarian and home schools have no right to compete with public schools for public funding (i.e. vouchers). That's why they're "private, sectarian or home" schools. If you want to send your kid to a private school, bully for you. DON'T DO IT ON THE TAXPAYERS' DIME.

A prerequisite for this is public schools that are worth a damn, and a legislature that is willing to fund them in the slightest *cough* Oregon *cough*

Post by **Gandalf** » 2003-08-03 11:28pm

If there were 200 parties the rule of the DNRC could be realised.

Bob McDob · Post by **Bob McDob** » 2003-08-03 11:49pm

Gandalf wrote:If there were 200 parties the rule of the DNRC could be realised.

*cough* There ARE 200 parties.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-08-04 12:17am

Bob McDob wrote:
Gandalf wrote:If there were 200 parties the rule of the DNRC could be realised.
*cough* There ARE 200 parties.

I think he's referring to 200 major parties with equal power that I was referring to when making this thread, not 2 major parties, one or two notable third parties, and a whole bunch of wierd parties nobody has ever heard of.

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-08-04 01:09am

The US doesn't have a 2 party system, its just that 2 parties are dominant.

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2003-08-04 06:10am

Worlds Spanner wrote:
Iceberg wrote:I became a Democrat because I was pro-public-education. I believe that private, sectarian and home schools have no right to compete with public schools for public funding (i.e. vouchers). That's why they're "private, sectarian or home" schools. If you want to send your kid to a private school, bully for you. DON'T DO IT ON THE TAXPAYERS' DIME.
At someone who attended a private school (and my parents payed the entire bill AND thei taces), I entirely agree with you.

Same here, and I'm in the same boat as Worlds Spanner

Here's another question. What about a 3 party system?

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-08-04 07:06am

*snort*
You would need a proportional system of elections and 5% threshold to get a party list member into office or a direct seat.
Of course that would call into questionany ligitimacy to govern of a president with less than 51% of the national vote.
With you current traditions 200 parties could not function.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-08-04 07:14am

Glocksman wrote:
Both the Republicans and the Democrats are probably like coalitions of between 12-15 identifiable groups that would be independent parties in a European-style parliamentary system.
Interesting comment.

For all of my thinking on politics and government, I never thought much about why the US doesn't have the number of viable, active, national level political parties that some European style parliamentary systems have.

Two reasons.
1} As a nation you are politically immature. I dont mean to sound insulting but your political culture just does not allow for it. A party is either good or bad depending on your opinion and voters dont have a viable choice because of reason 2}

2} You dont have a proportional system of electing your representatives.
Your parties embrace all and represent a consensus, but not nessaraly the opinion of voters.
Just my opinion

Drooling Iguana · Post by **Drooling Iguana** » 2003-08-04 01:05pm

Bob McDob wrote:I've never been very fond of the two-party system (and indeed I'd like to see parties themselves disbanded, if at all possible), but it does seem like the current two party system is something Americans have chosen by choice - it's not like there's something in the Constitution requiring it. With that in mind, I would focus on asking why Americans in particular are so fond of breaking down political ideology into two sides, "good" (yours) and "evil" (the other guy).

There's nothing in your Constitution that directly endorses a two-party system, but the your all-or-nothing elections pretty much makes it the only viable option.

Drooling Iguana · Post by **Drooling Iguana** » 2003-08-04 01:07pm

Drooling Iguana wrote:
Bob McDob wrote:I've never been very fond of the two-party system (and indeed I'd like to see parties themselves disbanded, if at all possible), but it does seem like the current two party system is something Americans have chosen by choice - it's not like there's something in the Constitution requiring it. With that in mind, I would focus on asking why Americans in particular are so fond of breaking down political ideology into two sides, "good" (yours) and "evil" (the other guy).
There's nothing in your Constitution that directly endorses a two-party system, but the your all-or-nothing elections pretty much makes it the only viable option.

Ignore the "the" before "your all-or-nothing elections."

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2003-08-04 02:57pm

If states got to divide their electoral votes between candidates, smaller parties might get more influence.

Hasler · Post by **Hasler** » 2003-08-04 03:24pm

If the US had 200 parties of equal strength and they each go a chunk of the electoral vote congress would be picking the president. The winner has to have the majority of the total electoral vote. If he dosent congress choses who wins regardless of who the popular or electoral winner is.

Tribun · Post by **Tribun** » 2003-08-04 05:06pm

It is not important, how many parties exist, but how many have influence and are big enough.
For Example, in Germany, there are at least over 290 parties, but only 5 really have influence and are big enough to be important.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

A 200-party system, what would happen to American Elections?

A 200-party system, what would happen to American Elections?

Re: A 200-party system, what would happen to American Electi