[personal profile] asterroc
What is it about the US's three branches of government that has led to a two-party system throughout the US's history, where nations with two branches tend to have a robust multi-party system?

(Where by "two branches" I mean the Executive and Legislative merged into a Parliament and the head of their majority party is the prime Prime Minister. If there's another name for this style of government, I'd be curious to know.)

Date: 2009-11-30 04:38 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] seekingferret.livejournal.com
Typically, the system you refer to is called a Parliamentary System.

Most of the parliamentary systems I'm familiar with use proportional representation, which is to say, a party is apportioned seats based on the percentage of the total vote they received. This results in a multi-party body because small third parties, like the Independent Party that saw Ross Perot take 10% of the vote in the '92 Election, gain seats and thus political power with the potential to swing votes.

There are of course cons to the system. Parliamentary systems can be afflicted with frequent 'crises of confidence' when coalitions of many parties fall apart. Israel has seen several governments over the past two years, for example, as the Kadima-led coalition failed to preserve its power after a transition from one prime minister to his replacement, and I don't expect the current Likud-led coalition to last particularly long, either.

Date: 2009-11-30 05:11 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] q10.livejournal.com
which ones are you thinking of? there are certainly some major ones (i feel like the one i hear about most often is Israel), but there are some prominent parliamentary-style assemblies (including the main national legislatures of the UK and Canada, i believe) that use a first-past-the-post district-based system. various hybrid systems are also quite common.

i would guess that proportionality does a lot more to promote party diversity than the details of parliamentary systems in general do, but Canda and the UK do seem to have stronger (or at least better represented in the national legislature) minor parties than we get here in the US.

i'd guess that the factor in these cases is that the parliamentary system allows minor parties that can build enough regional strength to get a few members in the house still have a chance at joining a coalition and influencing the choice of head-of-government, while the fact that the president is elected directly here means that even if you can get enough regional support to pull a few house seats, you're basically cut out from influencing the choice of executive, and will just end up being the hated spoiler party.

Date: 2009-11-30 10:17 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] meleah.livejournal.com
Westminster system.

Date: 2009-11-30 01:50 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] xoder.livejournal.com
Are you sure? I thought that there was at least one parliamentary system with only two parties — Britain only has Tory and Labour, no (not counting 3rd parties like BNP or Green, much like we don't count them here either!)? The key is proportional representation (as mentioned elsewhere). Without it, the "first-past-the-post" system discourages multi-party elections, as the "side" with the fewest divisions* will always win.

* By "side with fewest divisions, I refer to things like the US Democratic party getting split by Greens and the various Socialist parties, while the US Republican party gets split by the Conservative party and the Reform party.

Date: 2009-12-01 01:25 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] calzephyr77.livejournal.com
The parliamentary system isn't working so great right now - we have had a national election every couple of years since 2004 IIRC. The Progressive Conservatives have a minority government.

Profile

asterroc

April 2017

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
232425 26272829
30      

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 14th, 2025 02:47 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios