Originally posted by Saxman
I don't recall any law on the books stating that there is has been always will be a two-party system in the US. The framework for the American government system didn't even establish PROVISIONS for a party system.
In fact, the only reason we HAVE a two-party system to begin with is because Jefferson and Adams didn't get along and it's all just snowballed from there. Washington specifically warned AGAINST a party system from the beginning, and it's damn well clear today WHY.
It's a part of our system of government out of TRADITION, and so entrenched that the Party Line sheeple are terrified of thinking of anything else.
And unfortunately, it's the Party Line that throws around the power.
It's true that the founders didn't even provide for parties, actually had anticipated having none at all but this is an example of one of very few failures in their vision. The primary failure on their part being, of course, not eliminating slavery.
Political parties would have developed in any case as like minded people will congregate. In our case the spark was provided by Jefferson and Adams; however, it would have occured anyway. I would consider it a true statement that our two party system is based, to a degree, on tradition; however, the system has proven to be amazingly flexible with both parties absorbing ideas that come from third parties.
That said, historically, third parties are spoilers. While, over time, some ideas do become more mainstream but a third party will never succeed primarily due to the electoral college.
I understand the frustration that motivates the idea of third parties; however, additional parties are destabilizing and not in a good way. Look around at the multiple party governments (Italy comes immediately to mind)and there is a long standing tradition of instability and even more ineptness than in our system. Small fringe groups like the Greens for instance gain power far out of proportion to their constituancy because other parties must build a coalition in order to govern. Our system has shown far more stability and progress than any other and third parties have usually worked to the detrement of all. For instance, it is well known that Nadar's candidacy pulled votes from the party that was closest in ideology and the Democrats lost. Perot did the same thing to the Republicans.
In any case IMO there is no possibility or need for a third party. What really disturbs me the most though is the factionalizing. Consider this. Is the Libertarian Party closer to the Republican or Democrat party? I'd say the Republican as both are based on a conservative ideology. Now, say the country is 50/50 conservative and liberal (yes, an oversimplification but just for the sake of argument). A significant percentage of disaffected Republicans shift to the Libertarian party because Republicans are not conservative enough which then basically guarantees LIBERALs win. This is what happened in the last election. Disaffected Republicans, upset that the Republican party is not conservative enough either didn't vote or went Libertarian virtually guaranteeing Liberals a win. Where's the sense in that? It's little more than a five year old holding their breath. It's immature, destructive and just flat out foolish.
Overall, while the system isn't perfect it's work well. You want to become another Italy? Lets add a third party and while we're at it a fourth, fifth and sixth.
