Why does the USA have only two large political parties?

[Picaro]

Oddly enough, one of the strongest Christian states (Alaska at 70%), is also the one that votes third party (Libertarian)

We're basically a different country from our dysfunctional southern cousins though so... ~shrug~

Alaska until the price of oil dropped recently also hands out govt freebies like candy, complete with artificial towns built for the 'natives' and oil royalties handed out to citizens from the stat treasury. that makes it a lot easier to be all 'libertarian n stuff' when you don't have to pay to live somewhere, keep roads in repair, hospitals up, that sort of stuff, much like dumbass upper class Burb Brats don't worry at all about barrios full of criminal illegal aliens they rarely ever see up close or have to pay any taxes to subsidize at their own expense.

<Begin rant>

Oooo someone's been hitting the fake news hard lately. Here's some /real/ news about Alaska's budgeting (slightly dated, but it was /during/ the recession.) - Understanding Alaska's Revenue - Understanding Alaska's Budget

"Over half the state’s total budget (56% in FY2012) and 90% of its discretionary spending (known as the general fund) comes from oil revenue."

"Money from Washington, D.C., currently provides about a fifth of Alaska’s total budget (19% in FY2012). Federal dollars are less flexible than oil dollars. They tend to pay for specific services (such as Medicare and the federal share of Medicaid) and building large infrastructure projects (think highways, bridges and airports) that may require state matching funds. In addition to being less flexible, they often come with strings attached (federal rules and regulations)." -- AKA shit the Feds piss away, not Alaska's gov. You see it's ironic since it's Fed mandated programs that require we pay "restitution" to the Alaska Natives (who's land was actually 'stolen' by the Russian's, not America) this comes in the form of heavy financial subsidies granted by the feds, medicare/medicaid that isn't managed by the state, but also in land that the state of Alaska has to cede to them - but whatever right? It's the numbers that matter when you're trying to shit on a fellow state because they happen to lean right. I find it hilarious when ya'll lower 48ers spout off stupidly about Alaska's budgeting and spending because we literally make as much off our investment portfolio as we do from the feds: "Another significant share of revenue to the state (19% in FY2012) comes from money the state earns on its investment funds."

The 'third party' part of Alaska comes in where instead of the state government pocketing all of our surplus income to spend on more government bullshit, we hand out a good portion of the capital gains to our people every single year. No state tax, no state sales tax, no muni taxes most places, low licensing fees, little regulation, and freedom for both Alaskan's and businesses. Alaska does for it's people, not its politicians. We also do a lot for the nation which your little bullshit "spends more" studies actually penalize us for. We have a massive military presence in the Pacific and are charged with defending not only the lower 48, but also Canada, Europe, Greenland, Iceland, the Northwest Passage, etc., etc. against America's strongest enemies (N. Korea, Russia, China.) We have the most national park land of any state in the nation by fucking far. And the cost of maintaining all of that /federally required/ stuff is considered as "Alaska costs" by your 'fake news' bullshit slant that Alaska, most importantly a 'republican' state, 'steals' from the feds.

Its bullshit for the uneducated masses who can't be bothered to learn a single thing about another state, or even the study they're reading, before bitching about said state's residents for purely hostile reasons of sowing hatred between state populations. The urban vs rural hatred that partisan assholes like you roll around in like pigs in shit. Congrats, here's your sign.

"Alaska has just over $61 billion in savings, of which $21 billion can be used to help offset a fiscal gap. This savings would fund three years of general fund spending at current levels should oil revenues dry up completely. With projected gradual declines in oil revenue the funds available in savings are anticipated to last through 2030." -- Our total annual budget is $11-13B a year so we'll be just fine long after you've blown your fiscal wad on illegal aliens and rancher subsidies. Shove that in your "better than thou" tail pipe and suck it little bro state. Texas, and ND, would be wise to follow our example in handling their state resources instead of pissing it all away.


** Note on National Parks - USA's largest national park is Wrangell–St. Elias in Alaska: at over 8 million acres (32,375 km2), it is larger than each of the nine smallest states. The next three largest parks are also in Alaska.

Denali National Park Alaska 1917 4,740,911.16 acres (19,185.7868 km2)
Gates of the Arctic National Park Alaska 1980 7,523,897.45 acres (30,448.1327 km2)
Glacier Bay National Park Alaska 1980 3,223,383.43 acres (13,044.5699 km2)
Katmai National Park Alaska 1980 3,674,529.33 acres (14,870.2926 km2)
Kenai Fjords National Park Alaska 1980 669,650.05 acres (2,709.9776 km2)
Kobuk Valley National Park Alaska 1980 1,750,716.16 acres (7,084.8969 km2)
Lake Clark National Park Alaska 1980 2,619,816.49 acres (10,602.0212 km2)
Wrangell-St. Elias National Park Alaska 1980 8,323,146.48 acres (33,682.5788 km2)
Aniakchak National Monument and Preserve Alaska 137,176 acres (555.13 km2)
Cape Krusenstern National Monument and Archeological District Alaska 649,124.53 acres (2,626.9138 km2)
Aniakchak National Monument and Preserve Alaska 464,117.93 acres (1,878.2186 km2)
Bering Land Bridge National Preserve Alaska 2,697,391.01 acres (10,915.9541 km2)
Denali National Park and Preserve Alaska 1,334,117.80 acres (5,398.9832 km2)
Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve Alaska 948,608.07 acres (3,838.8807 km2)
Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve Alaska 58,406.00 acres (236.3607 km2)
Katmai National Park and Preserve Alaska 418,698.80 acres (1,694.4139 km2)
Lake Clark National Park and Preserve Alaska 1,410,293.68 acres (5,707.2560 km2)
Noatak National Preserve Alaska 6,587,071.39 acres (26,656.9322 km2)
Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve Alaska 4,852,644.52 acres (19,637.9556 km2)
Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve Alaska 2,526,512.44 acres (10,224.4331 km2)
Sitka National Historical Park Alaska 116.29 acres (0.4706 km2)
Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park (part of Klondike Gold Rush International Historical Park) **Alaska, Washington 12,996.49 acres (52.5949 km2)
Aleutian World War II National Historic Area (affiliated area) Alaska
Alagnak Wild and Scenic River Alaska
Inupiat Heritage Center (affiliated area) Alaska

We also pay out of our $11B annual budget for large numbers of state parks on TOP of all the federal parks. Like literally, you can't throw a damn rock without hitting a park up here - and we maintain it all for our love of nature and for the nations future generations to share it.

*** The Feds employee some 17.7K employees in fields ranging from national park management to earthquake/tsunami watch employees, FBI, CIA, FAA, etc. (I heard on TV not to long ago that we hit 20K but I can't find an online reference for that.)

**** Note on Military - Nine military bases are in Alaska. Fort Wainwright, Elmendorf AFB, and Fort Richardson are the largest bases in Alaska, each averaging about 6,000 military personnel. Eielson AFB North Pole, CLEAR AF Base Denali, Fort Greely Fairbanks, ISC Kodiak CG, Marine Safty CG Valdez, USCG Juneau. Active duty 19.4K, Reserve 4.7K, Civilian support staff 5K. That's a solid 25% of our population being directly employed by the military.

The Army and the Air Force make up more than 75 percent of that military might. Most of the training operations prepare service members for operating in inhospitable winter climates whether on the ground or in the air. Missile defense and detection mission is a high priority for the Alaskan Soldiers and Airmen stationed there. Clear Air Force Station is one of many early detection centers for Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM) coming over the pacific or the North Pole. The Coast Guard has a large presence in Alaska with a variety of missions along the coast line and in the Bering Sea. The Naval Special Warfare Detachment Kodiak is a tenant of the base and uses the training areas for Winter Warfare for Navy SEAL Training.

What the hell does this crap have to do with the OP's original question?

It has to do with a 'third party' making noises about deploring Fed spending, while taking every Fed dollar they can lay their hands on when in office themselves, like 'Libertarians'; Ron Paul in Texas was the third largest porkster in Congressional history, while babbling about being a' libertarian' ad nauseam. Alaskan 'libertarians' are no different, and neither was Sarah Palin of most GOP pols. So, it has to do with the myth that 'third parties' would be different if they got in power. They won't be. There at least 3 or 4 lobbyists for every officer holder in D.C. who will make sure business continues as usual.

 

[Linkiloo]

Experience shows that, for example, there is much greater voter awareness and engagement in France than in the U.S. Why this is so remains unclear.
This isn't to say that the French have it right. It is not meant to exalt nor denigrate America's oldest ally; it's just a comment.

maybe that has something to do with the difference in population size as well as geographical size of the countries. I am pretty sure where there are huge landmasses politicians have a harder time reaching the populace.

Nothing to do with population size at all. It's to do with how the people get to vote.

How do they "get to vote"? No idea what you are saying.

 

[JoeB131]

I have a gut feeling that there may be some major changes if Republicans sweep the upcoming November elections. The Democrat Pary as it now stands has got to splinter. I also think the American Independent Party is going to pick up a lot of new members.

Why would it change in the very unlikely event the GOP does well in the upcoming election. (Spoiler alert- they won't.)

The GOP, on the other hand, is dead the minute Trump has a recession, because it doesn't stand for anything now but Trump.

 

[Windparadox]

There was a point? No, I don't think I missed the point, I think you were rambling.

`
I think your commenting just to say something --- no value added to the discussion.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Experience shows that, for example, there is much greater voter awareness and engagement in France than in the U.S. Why this is so remains unclear.
This isn't to say that the French have it right. It is not meant to exalt nor denigrate America's oldest ally; it's just a comment.

maybe that has something to do with the difference in population size as well as geographical size of the countries. I am pretty sure where there are huge landmasses politicians have a harder time reaching the populace.

Nothing to do with population size at all. It's to do with how the people get to vote.

How do they "get to vote"? No idea what you are saying.

Do you get to vote with FPTP, with PR, with AV? Different ways of voting change the outcome of what people do.

 

[frigidweirdo]

There was a point? No, I don't think I missed the point, I think you were rambling.

`
I think your commenting just to say something --- no value added to the discussion.

Well, apart from the grammar mistake, I could have said that very same thing about your initial post.

 

[Windparadox]

Well, apart from the grammar mistake, I could have said that very same thing about your initial post.

`
Your opinion, added nothing of value, once again. Keep on topic.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, apart from the grammar mistake, I could have said that very same thing about your initial post.

`
Your opinion, added nothing of value, once again. Keep on topic.

That's funny, seeing as you never were.

 

[flacaltenn]

Why isn't there a third major political party besides the Republicans and the Democrats?

It's largely because Americans have been bullied into "voting only for winners".. And the perception is that no could ever win without the massive support the candidates get from the 2 "Brand Name" parties. But it usually implies voting AGAINST the other candidate -- not being jazzed at all about being forced to pick between 2 defective meglomaniacs with a power fetish..

I've worked for the Libertarians for about 18 years now. Actively. But more and more, I think "parties" are just a blight on getting govt to work. The 2 parties have "nested" in govt -- especially Congress--- and feathered it to MAKE it a "2 party institution" by design.

The SIMPLER revolution to knock the grand ole pre-dementia, inept, power hungry down --- would be to inject about 10 INDEPENDENTS that dont owe allegiance to either party.. PREFERABLY "big name" folks who just dont' want to work for the likes of McConnell, Pelosi, Schumer or Ryan. They become pets if they do..

With just 8 or 10 TRUE independents in Congress, it would be a "vaccination" effect that could and should clean out the nest.

 

[longknife]

Getting back to the original question of why only two parties.

Before the revolution, colonial poltics followed the two-party British system of Whigs and Tories. See A History of the Two-Party System: Part 1 (Colonial Era through the Civil War)

As previously reported, the constitution is silent on political parties.

But, elected officials appear to be unable not to form themselves into political alliances. Therefore, the following:

First Party System: 1792–1824
Main article: First Party System
The First Party System of the United States featured the Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republican Party (also called "Democratic-Republican" or "Jeffersonian Republican"). The Federalist Party grew from the national network of Washington's Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, who favored a strong united central government, close ties to Britain, a centralized banking system, and close links between the government and men of wealth.

The Democratic-Republican Party was founded by Madison and Thomas Jefferson, who strongly opposed Hamilton's agenda.[9] The Jeffersonians came to power in 1800 and the Federalists were too elitist to compete effectively. They survived in the Northeast, but their refusal to support the War of 1812 verged on secession and was a devastating blow when the war ended well. The Era of Good Feelings under President James Monroe (1816–1824) marked the end of the First Party System and a brief period in which partisanship was minimal.[10]

I hope this helps answer your question.

 

[xyz]

I'd vote Whig or Anti-Masonic, but I think they haven't been on the ticket for a while.

 

[yiostheoy]

Why isn't there a third major political party besides the Republicans and the Democrats?

3rd parties are not very successful anywhere.

So what evolves is normally a capitalist party, a labor party, and a whole bunch of nonpartisans in between.

 

[yiostheoy]

I'd vote Whig or Anti-Masonic, but I think they haven't been on the ticket for a while.

There have been 14 presidents who were Freemasons.

The last one was Gerald Ford.

So if you voted for Carter against Ford you are indeed anti-Masonic.

US Presidents Freemasons – The Grand Lodge of Virginia

 

[yiostheoy]

Why isn't there a third major political party besides the Republicans and the Democrats?

It's largely because Americans have been bullied into "voting only for winners".. And the perception is that no could ever win without the massive support the candidates get from the 2 "Brand Name" parties. But it usually implies voting AGAINST the other candidate -- not being jazzed at all about being forced to pick between 2 defective meglomaniacs with a power fetish..

I've worked for the Libertarians for about 18 years now. Actively. But more and more, I think "parties" are just a blight on getting govt to work. The 2 parties have "nested" in govt -- especially Congress--- and feathered it to MAKE it a "2 party institution" by design.

The SIMPLER revolution to knock the grand ole pre-dementia, inept, power hungry down --- would be to inject about 10 INDEPENDENTS that dont owe allegiance to either party.. PREFERABLY "big name" folks who just dont' want to work for the likes of McConnell, Pelosi, Schumer or Ryan. They become pets if they do..

With just 8 or 10 TRUE independents in Congress, it would be a "vaccination" effect that could and should clean out the nest.

Jeeze flacaltenn if that's what you really think then you have not been paying attention to history.

Which is indeed unusual for you because you are somewhat of a fan of history as well.

The first American party after the ratification of the Constitution was Federalist -- the party of Washington and Adams.

Then Thomas Jefferson came along and cried "fascists!" and invented the Democratic Republicans, which were neither democratic nor republican. These azzholes were popular for a long time until a variation of Federalists re-evolved calling themselves Whigs.

These two duked it out for a long time until Abraham Lincoln came along and not wanting to call himself a Whig invented "Republican" which is essentially a Whig offshoot.

The GOP has been with us since Lincoln, although now they like to call themselves the party of the moron Reagan.

And the Democrats have been with us since Jefferson only becoming much more progressive and socialist.

On those rare occasions when a notable independent such as Perot or Nader has been on the ballot he has only gotten about 5% of the vote.

There is simply no room in the USA for a viable 3rd party.

Never was.

Never will be.

End of 8th Grade History lecture.

You should have learned all this in the 8th Grade (unless you went to public schools in which case you probably learned nothing except how to buy weed and smoke it).

Q.E.D.

 

[flacaltenn]

Why isn't there a third major political party besides the Republicans and the Democrats?

It's largely because Americans have been bullied into "voting only for winners".. And the perception is that no could ever win without the massive support the candidates get from the 2 "Brand Name" parties. But it usually implies voting AGAINST the other candidate -- not being jazzed at all about being forced to pick between 2 defective meglomaniacs with a power fetish..

I've worked for the Libertarians for about 18 years now. Actively. But more and more, I think "parties" are just a blight on getting govt to work. The 2 parties have "nested" in govt -- especially Congress--- and feathered it to MAKE it a "2 party institution" by design.

The SIMPLER revolution to knock the grand ole pre-dementia, inept, power hungry down --- would be to inject about 10 INDEPENDENTS that dont owe allegiance to either party.. PREFERABLY "big name" folks who just dont' want to work for the likes of McConnell, Pelosi, Schumer or Ryan. They become pets if they do..

With just 8 or 10 TRUE independents in Congress, it would be a "vaccination" effect that could and should clean out the nest.

Jeeze flacaltenn if that's what you really think then you have not been paying attention to history.

Which is indeed unusual for you because you are somewhat of a fan of history as well.

The first American party after the ratification of the Constitution was Federalist -- the party of Washington and Adams.

Then Thomas Jefferson came along and cried "fascists!" and invented the Democratic Republicans, which were neither democratic nor republican. These azzholes were popular for a long time until a variation of Federalists re-evolved calling themselves Whigs.

These two duked it out for a long time until Abraham Lincoln came along and not wanting to call himself a Whig invented "Republican" which is essentially a Whig offshoot.

The GOP has been with us since Lincoln, although now they like to call themselves the party of the moron Reagan.

And the Democrats have been with us since Jefferson only becoming much more progressive and socialist.

On those rare occasions when a notable independent such as Perot or Nader has been on the ballot he has only gotten about 5% of the vote.

There is simply no room in the USA for a viable 3rd party.

Never was.

Never will be.

End of 8th Grade History lecture.

You should have learned all this in the 8th Grade (unless you went to public schools in which case you probably learned nothing except how to buy weed and smoke it).

Q.E.D.

If we're gonna discuss history (yes I'm a fan) than I want to know if you're aware of these.. Just 2 of MANY WARNINGS from the founders of the nation..

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.
JOHN ADAMS, letter to Jonathan Jackson, October 2, 1789

However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796

There was NO INTENT to make America a 2 party duopoly.. In fact, the whole concept of parties was a big red flag to the founders. And Yiostheoy ---- How is that 2 party working out for you?

You getting adequate WORK and honest DISCUSSION out of the leadership? You LIKE the fact that only FOUR party bosses control the ENTIRE FUNCTION and debate in Congress? Are you aware of what happens when the representation becomes SO ONE-SIDED in any state --- that it resembles a Communist party election? Aware of the California "jungle" "top 2 primaries" where for the past 2 Senate elections, NO REPUB and NO Independent, and NO 3rd party choices are ALLOWED on the General Election ballot? Just 2 Democrats.

They are USURPING the power and BUILDING it in the image of THEIR 2 party fantasy.. And what you get is people choosing between 2 JUNK candidates and NOT voting for issues or principles -- but being taught and CONDITIONED to vote for a party win. That's WHY we are all losing. That's WHY this country is circling the drain in terms of political leadership..

Don't NEED a massive 3rd party wave. Don't NEED a majority in either House of Congress.. What you NEED IS about 10 unmuzzled and unleashed leaders to offer honest appraisal of the totally fucked up process. The "nesting" of these 2 corrupt, inept, power mad parties needs to be cleaned out.

Just a FEW Independent voices would do that. If you don't believe me -- just LOOK at the coverage and attention that Corker, Flake got when they decided to quit. They were the "go-to" interview. Didn't NEED to beg for interviews. Because they were the ONLY PEOPLE not spouting the same party talking points. THEY DID IT out of anger and resistance. But if you get a few principled leaders not controlled by McConnell, Schumer, Pelosi and Ryan --- nobody would WANT the parroted party spin.. The press would race to get statements from the INDEPENDENTS that are gonna determine how the vote goes. We all KNOW how the other 520 or so are gonna vote. Don't we?

There's no other way to stop the DECLINE in American leadership...

 

[John Shaw]

Because Americans are supremely stupid. It's amazing we're so successful while consistently bombing in education year after year. Eventually our luck is going to run out ...