Why haven't more people championed for there to be more than just 2 major political parties?

Question

while i do agree with most of the things that obama stands for and i disagree with most of mccain's platform, i can't help but to think how insane it is with there being so many people in this country, we have only 2 major political parties to represent everyone. i realize that there is the green party and other minor political parties, but for the most part, in order to be a part of a winning team, most people have to vote for a democrat or republican. why don't more people champion for a more diverse political system? most politicians come from the same type of upper middle-class, if not wealthy upbringing, and frankly that represents only a small portion of americans. what is wrong with being able to pick more than just a republican or a democrat? most people don't agree with everything that their favorite politician stands for so why not try for more political parties? is that such a radical idea?

Answer 1

There have been many many attempts to form a 3rd party and in fact, depending on your state, when you vote you may find 3-6 presidential candidates.

My answer is two part

1. Take a look at countries that have multiparty structures, mostly parliamentarian, and look at the chaos in most of them.

2. When the presidency is winner take all, that quickly shuts out additional parties - the winner's voters and most of the rest of the population.

And yes, as you ask, it is a radical idea.   If there is more than two parties, then some how the power has got to be shared - as in forming a government and allotting cabinet seats, etc.

And it is radical another way - usually a party forms around a dominant idea in 1 area with a dominant leader with strong opinions in that 1 area.  It is easy for the two primary parties to portray that idea as extreme while pointing out that there is not a broad basis for the new party.  Then the two primary parties shift their positions to adopt parts of the new party ideas, diluting the attractiveness of the new party.

  The Libertarian party is perhaps the most widely represented of the 3rd parties at this time.  Their core idea is that any government is bad and they are often represented by people who want to shut down major aspects of the government.  But most people feel that the basic core of government activity is pretty good (Kill Social Security?, Deplete the Army?, Take 20% of everybody's money?  Nah) and are well aware that reducing the Federal Government doesn't mean good local government, because Thugs can rule the state, city or neighborhood.

Answer 2

I agree on certain aspects of this & I always vote 3rd party (granted I like the candidate!)

Answer 3

There are hundreds of other parties known as "Third Parties," in America, there have always been 2 major parties, starting with the Federalists and Democratic Republicans. Generally the major parties are decided by the amount of people who are members of it, the popularity, and funding of each. People often identify with these two parties the most at that time, and that is why they are so popular. Over time as events occur, the views of the parties begin to differ from those of the people, in the past, this would result in a new party being formed, like the Federalists became the Whigs, but in modern times, the parties just change their policies, like Joe Lieberman did recently.

Answer 4

As you pointed out, there are other political parties. They have not gained a following strong enough to compete with the myriad money-changing political fat cats out there. Serveral elections ago, I changed my party affiliation from one the majors to "unaffiliated" as a small personal effort to bring about the changes of which you speak. I figured that if enough people did the same, we could create another major politacal party. Alas,nothing has changed. Even if we succeeded with creating a new party, there would still be one major problem - they would STILL be POLITICIANS!!

Answer 5

this year all we got were two democrats.  

Answer 6

it takes HUNDREDS of millions of dollars to fund a campaign.  only the wealthy can fund these 2 parties.  you do also know that the democrats and the republicans used to be the same party, waaay back in the day

Answer 7

every one ha is own idea

Answer 8

Independents will get enough money to compete some day but truthfully nobody is a pure dem or rep, they all race for the middle this time of year and say anything that will get them votes.  The two parties only exist because thats where the money is...

Answer 9

The Constitution gets in the way.

It's specifically set up to create a Checks & Balances system so that it stays a republic and not evolve into a monarchy (like in the case of the Roman Republic).

Therefore the 3 branches in government have equal power, theoretically (although sometimes it'll shift around between the 3).

To keep it balanced and strong, the Constitution also designed the Electoral College voting system, and all the rules we use today...right down to the sub division of the same ideology.  (Republicans & Democrats are the same, in that there's no major difference as opposed to a Liberal vs Labour vs Socialist in European countries),

Although, I agree with you.

A proportional representative government, and not our winner-take-all, would be more "democratic" or better represented by the people.

Contrast to government feeding us the parties and us picking their choices.

Demos - People

cracy- Rule