American political parties are already basically coalitions. Each one would be three or four different parties in Europe.

There will probably never be a third party on the federal level. If there's support for a certain set of ideal that would warrant a political party in another country that group would just latch on to one of the existing ones, like fusionist libertarians or commies like Putin33.

I am going to start a third party that explicitly opposes democracy. The fact that its very existence makes the process more undemocratic (as you point out) will therefore make it automatically effective and victorious.

but our election does not work like elections in Europe. An election where one candidate does not recieve a majority of electoral college votes will be sent to the lame duck congress, who will decide on the president regardless of the current election (correct me if I am wrong.) The end result of several viable parties beling in the election would be electoral chaos and backroom deal making

I believe it's the new Congress, SC, not lame duck.

Check out 1800, I believe that it was the lame duck congress, I don't know if they changed that in the time being

The most interesting thing is that in that process, each state votes as one.

Still, I think that one should really look to the legislaure for multi parties. That's where they'd work first. Have multi parties in Congress, with coalition primaries for President.

That's exactly why there are two parties. They are pre-existing coalitions which maximize vaguely like-minded people's efforts to win office at all levels. That's a result of our political system being designed before political parties existed at all and not changed structurally since then. With first-past-the-post and a federal system a two-arty system is almost inevitable.

If you don't believe me then just think about it. Would Nacy Pelosi and Joe Manchin be in the same party in Sweden?

^
That is the only reason why John Adams didn't get a second term (Or Aaron Burr a first) from the lame duck session

That was for SantaClausowitz's 11:39 post.

Yes, they changed the dates when Congress (and for that matter, the President) are inaugurated. It now works out to be the new Congress. (20th amendment).

"That is the only reason why John Adams didn't get a second term (Or Aaron Burr a first) from the lame duck session"

The system we have now is different from the one used in 1800.

2 up excuse me

I tend to think it's the result of our government being formed by largely undemocratic patricians who wanted tohe decision as far out of the hands of the public (and in theirs) as possible. The *wanted* the presidency to be the result of backroom deals and chamber votes.

The question is, how hasn't this been changed?

"The system we have now is different from the one used in 1800. "

The presidential/ Vp system is different, I don't know if the day the election goes to congress is different. I doubt that it actually is unless you know the ammendment or act of congress that changed it.

The new Congress is sworn in earlier because of the 20th amendment, as I said -- January 3rd. The date of opening the electoral votes is a matter of law, not in the Constitution, but it's currently after that -- on 1/6.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/previous_questions.html

My knowledge of ammendments goes to crap after the 19th.

"I tend to think it's the result of our government being formed by largely undemocratic patricians who wanted tohe decision as far out of the hands of the public (and in theirs) as possible. The *wanted* the presidency to be the result of backroom deals and chamber votes."

Well, for 1789 that's still pretty good. Certainly better than the contemporary republics of Venice and the Netherlands. And it's steadily improved since then to the fairly good system we have now.

Third parties aren't so hard to pull off because of a conspiracy, they're so hard to pull off because it's just the way things are in a federal system with first-past-the-post. the two parties adequately represent about half the electorate each, so a third party van only steal from one side and lead to it's ideological foe's victory. That's why there are no serious third parties. We'd need PR or somethign to make the effort worthwhile.

I for one would prefer a system where one legislative house is elected from single-member districts, and a second house elected by proportional representation or large multi-member districts from larger geographic regions. That way you get both the local representative who will (theoretically) argue for the everyday concerns of his/her constituents, and an ideological voice for everyone (instead of just a "red" and "blue" team) in the second legislative body.

What conspiracy? I'm saying that if a viable 3rd party did present itself, it would be political chaos due to the constitutional rules governing elections. I think you are ignoring the point here, stuck on the political culture side of things.Do you agree or disagree?

Well, yeah. That's basically a truism.

I'm saying that a viable third party is so hard and unlikely as to be virtually impossible at the federal level. As I said, the parties are coalitions already and the structure favors a two-party system. A real third party (rather than a charismatic individual like Perot) has nothing going for it institutionally since it's success would only lead to the people furthest from its beliefs in power.

But if you look at history I'd say there were plenty of times that powerful third parties had a real chance of emerging. Eugen Debs was gaining traction before he was squashed by WWI and the power of the state for example. If Williams Jennings Bryant had flubbed one pivitil speech he would have likely had a large third party following. While I do not deny third parties are difficult under our political culture, I think if the right leader emerges with the right ideas to lead the libertarians they could put together a sizable party (provided their ideas arn't coopted (for real) by the republicans.

"the two parties adequately represent about half the electorate each"

Can you explain then why Ross Perot was polling at about 39% at one point in 1992?

*pivotal. My spelling ashames me

Can we please get ourselves an MMPC system already?

*MMPR. Mixed-member proportional representation.

*bryan as well

ammend the constitution over the wills of the two major parties and you have your wish.

and lets not forget several states

Not on the federal level. State level for sure, at least then. But those parties didn't take off EXACTLY because the Democrats absorbed most of their best ideas.

Even if the the hypothetical Serious Libertarians took half the GOP with them, they'd still need something like a third of the Democrats to get to first place. If Democrats are one thing, they are not libertarians.

Hey, I'd be thrilled to vote for a party that really represented my views, but that just can't happen in our system. It structurally favors a two-party system. We'd have to basically start over with a parliamentary system in order for anything else to be the case. That will never ever ever happen.

The requirement for single-member congressional districts was the result of an act of congress from the 1960s, IIRC, and would not require a constitutional amendment to repeal.