7 ms·

First past the post doesn’t explain historically why we have only two parties, but it explains why we will continue to have only two going forward unless someth

by nkrisc 18d ago

First past the post doesn’t explain historically why we have only two parties, but it explains why we will continue to have only two going forward unless something changes.

jfengel 18d ago
It explains why you end up with two parties even if you start with more. The two largest will woo minority parties until they get a majority. And minority party members know they will be marginalized unless they are aligned with the majority (or hope to be in the majority some day.) Changing that will require a radical reconsideration of democracy, like replacing FPtP with... something.
- skissane 17d ago
  It doesn’t because the UK has FPtP yet doesn’t have a hard two party system. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have nationalist movements that want out of the UK-state independence movements exist in the contemporary US too, but they are very fringe But even England has not just Labor and the Tories, but also the Lib Dems, Reform, the Greens, Restore So England proves you can have multiple parties with real power, with FPtP, even in the absence of regional-nationalist movements
skissane 18d ago
I actually think the US hard two party system isn't purely due to first-past-the-post, it is actually due to four interacting factors: (1) first-past-the-post; (2) presidentialism; (3) a deeply-entrenched primary system; (4) cultural homogeneity Point (4) will likely strike many Americans as dubious, but the US doesn't have anything comparable to Québec – there is presently no US state where English isn't the majority language; nor anything comparable to Scotland or Northern Ireland (no state where a significant percentage of its population identify with a competing national identity). So, no matter how much (undeniable) diversity the US has, in the sense that counts for this purpose, it doesn't. Hence: while abolishing first-past-the-post would no doubt do a lot to break the US hard two-party system, it could also be broken while retaining it if something happened to (2) or (3) or (4) instead. But, in US politics, changing (2) or (3) is even more politically fringe than changing (1) is. Maybe that might change at some point though, who knows what the future holds. And (4) will likely eventually cease to be true, but only in the long-run in which we are all already long-dead.
- nkrisc 17d ago
  I don't mean that the two party system we have is due to first-past-the-post, it almost doesn't even really matter why we have it. But first-past-the-post is the mechanism which currently entrenches it and is the most likely to change. I think that (3) is a result of the system, not a cause.

by nkrisc 18d ago

First past the post doesn’t explain historically why we have only two parties, but it explains why we will continue to have only two going forward unless something changes.

jfengel 18d ago

It explains why you end up with two parties even if you start with more. The two largest will woo minority parties until they get a majority. And minority party members know they will be marginalized unless they are aligned with the majority (or hope to be in the majority some day.) Changing that will require a radical reconsideration of democracy, like replacing FPtP with... something.

skissane 17d ago
It doesn’t because the UK has FPtP yet doesn’t have a hard two party system. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have nationalist movements that want out of the UK-state independence movements exist in the contemporary US too, but they are very fringe But even England has not just Labor and the Tories, but also the Lib Dems, Reform, the Greens, Restore So England proves you can have multiple parties with real power, with FPtP, even in the absence of regional-nationalist movements

skissane 18d ago

I actually think the US hard two party system isn't purely due to first-past-the-post, it is actually due to four interacting factors: (1) first-past-the-post; (2) presidentialism; (3) a deeply-entrenched primary system; (4) cultural homogeneity Point (4) will likely strike many Americans as dubious, but the US doesn't have anything comparable to Québec – there is presently no US state where English isn't the majority language; nor anything comparable to Scotland or Northern Ireland (no state where a significant percentage of its population identify with a competing national identity). So, no matter how much (undeniable) diversity the US has, in the sense that counts for this purpose, it doesn't. Hence: while abolishing first-past-the-post would no doubt do a lot to break the US hard two-party system, it could also be broken while retaining it if something happened to (2) or (3) or (4) instead. But, in US politics, changing (2) or (3) is even more politically fringe than changing (1) is. Maybe that might change at some point though, who knows what the future holds. And (4) will likely eventually cease to be true, but only in the long-run in which we are all already long-dead.

nkrisc 17d ago
I don't mean that the two party system we have is due to first-past-the-post, it almost doesn't even really matter why we have it. But first-past-the-post is the mechanism which currently entrenches it and is the most likely to change. I think that (3) is a result of the system, not a cause.