I thought about this in response to a comment someone made and postured a position in which the RNC and DNC are really just two monopoly companies at this point (link). I know there’s protection for political parties, but is that what these really are now with how they’re structured (kinda like they’re ticketmaster/livenation for politicians at this point)? I couldn’t find an easy answer and trying to dive deeper keeps pulling up irrelevant articles.
The term would be a Duopoly.
Looking at an entire political spectrum and there being only a Duopoly is heart breaking. But I meant more like each one is a true “business monopoly” for it’s own perspective market/party. Controlling exposure, funding, data, candidate selection, being generally a lobbying middleman group, at what point does this become less a “political ideological group” and more a business organization that focuses heavily on political candidates? (like a sign manufacturer is technically making political content, but they’re still just a business, they’re both providing a service or product to individuals).
This is not so much a focus on political parties or ideologies, but more the NC (national committee) portion of it. I understand state political parties. But when expanded to the national committee’s of those parties, how are those organizations not considered a monopoly for their parties centralizing and controlling the state level and have completely overtaken national decisions which can effect the state level as well.
And they are heavily regulated.
Many countries have first-past-the-post elections, and there usually we don’t see the mortal lock of the two major party like we see in the U.S.
In the UK for example there are regional parties (SNP, DUP, etc) and lib Dems/greens that win seats and send people to Westminster.
The main problem as far as I can see is that campaigning in the US is very expensive, and third parties have problems raising the cash needed to make a dent in elections for Congress, let alone statewide office.
To frame it in economic terms, it’s a market with a high barrier to entry that has evolved a duopoly. In that aspect it’s not too dissimilar to cable companies etc.
TLDR: Fuck citizens united
This question was less about electoral practices are more about a single entity controlling the national level of it’s party. I feel the function of these at a national level, can be argued as an organization/company which controls the market for their party. What “political party” protections are there and what distinguishes them from any other organization that could be regulated by the anti-competitive laws. I feel they are political in name only, and can truly be academically and legally viewed as a business (which supports mainly political clients).
1: FPTP is a terrible term as its literally not an accurate way to describe a “single-vote plurality wins” systrm like most of the USA has. When you use the phrase to someone who doesn’t already agree that there are better ways its just inaccurate enough to sabatoge any point you might make.
2: the UK and other parliamentary systems have embedded rewards just for being “a party”. There are only two parties in the USA becaue parties on their own have institutional recognition, and in our politocal contests there is no prize for second place.
-
it’s established terminology. I’m sure you have feelings about the term, but I’m not really invested in them either way.
-
I’m not sure what you are referring to
It’s not really “established” becaue there isnt any formal body declaring what names different voting systems have.
Are you unclear about what recognition other demcracies give to parties, how there is no prize for 2nd place in America, or why that lack of such a prize gives rise to a two-party system?
It’s not really “established” becaue there isnt any formal body declaring what names different voting systems have.
That is the most pompous way to say “I have never heard of political science”.
Are you unclear about what recognition other demcracies give to parties, how there is no prize for 2nd place in America, or why that lack of such a prize gives rise to a two-party system?
This is the most pompous way to say “I am unaware that lots of countries on this planet have district based systems”.
-
Watch this video about Represent Us https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfQij4aQq1k
Edit: changed to working link. Thanks
It didn’t, but this one did: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfQij4aQq1k
Thanks for the surprise J-Law early in the morning! I’m a big fan.
She can’t be beat but there are more Unbreaking America videos - https://representnv.us/unbreaking-america-videos/
There are other political parties, but because of the way American elections are structured, they have basically no chance of gaining any influence on a large scale. Dividing the vote just reduces the chances of your preferred party in the current system. If a “Republican-but-not-Trump” party would gain popularity, it’d divide the vote 50/25/25 and the Democrats would overwhelmingly win.
Third parties have a handful of representatives but they’re effectively powerless on a large scale.
This is very difficult to fix as it would require restructuring elections to remove the third party disadvantage. Neither party currently in power is a fan, because they only stand to lose votes when such a system is organised. I don’t think it’ll ever happen unless the USA collapses or we get some kind of united world government or something.
In the link comment I provided I did state it was a far off miracle. But, my focus was less on 3rd parties or electoral reform, it was directly related to the “National Committees” that exists. I’m all for state parties, reminds me of when Bell was split into it’s different areas. But on a national level I wonder if it can be argued that it’s so far removed from focusing on “political ideologies of it’s group” to becoming a service provider for selected candidates. You could look at the committee’s structures, are they even following their own political ideologies, what type of controlling power they have, etc etc.
