Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A Brief History Of The Two Party System

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 08:23 AM
Original message
A Brief History Of The Two Party System
The original two power parties were the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans.

The Federalists started out with a bang, but then started losing power within the government. They melted down into complete obscurity during the War of 1812 when they advocated for the secession of New England states.

At this point, it became a one party system for all intents and purposes. The Democratic-Republican party held sway, but quickly devolved into two factions, the Jacksonians and the Adams faction. This devolution resulted in a new two party system comprised on the Democratic party and the Whig Party.

In the mid-nineteenth century, the Whig party melted down. This allowed for the emergence of the Republican party to fill the void.

Ever since then, the two parties in the United States of America has been a two party system comprised of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. Third party candidates have been elected on the local level and some have served in congress, but since these two parties solidified their power in the eighteenth century, no third party candidate has ever been elected president.

This is not to say that third party runs have not had their effect, most notably in 1912 when a third party run by Theodore Roosevelt as the Bull Moose PArty candidate insured that the Democrat, Woodrow Wilson, would win the election.

In more recent times, Ross Perot gained a significant number of votes in 1992, but no electoral college votes. His run seemingly had little impact on the outcome of the race, though, as his support emerged from both parties nearly equally. The run by Ralph NAder in 2000, though, had a significant impact on the outcome of the race and allowed George W. Bush to win even though he had a lower total in the national popular vote.

The two party system is so ingrained within our political structure that unless the Republican Party completely melts down over the next eight years (which would be about the right amount of time historically speaking), no third party will emerge to take the place of one of the two major parties any time soon.

Just thought I'd point this out.

Flame on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 08:39 AM
Response to Original message
1. Democrats who vote like Republicans really bum me out., Just thought I'd point that out.
In case you didn't know how I feel.

Now you do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 08:46 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. They piss me off
i just wanted to get that out there too. fuck a bunch of republicons with a 2X4 sideways and twice on sundays and mondays and tuesdays and wednesdays and I'm sure you get the picture. The :puke:s piss me right the fuck off bigtime
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 08:47 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Politically speaking, your opportunity to challenge them is the primary. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 09:07 AM
Response to Original message
4. Thiird Parties Are Always Top Heavy...
Rarely is a third party actually a party. It generally galvanizes around a national figure...a Wallace, Nader, Perot and so on...there's little undercard work that is done...and even less is done after the election.

To create a legitimate third party, this requires building a party from the bottom up, not the top down...building up strength in the states and then moving onto the national. It's like a sports team without a farm system and trying to rely on one star player to win it all. This requires the third party to address many issues not one or two and have to run on a record rather than rhetoric.

I would love to see a viable third party...not a cult of personality or a none-of-the above option but seems like those who complain about the current system should be working on all levels to create a real third party, not a vanity ride for a cause or specific personality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. The problem is the structure in place makes third parties impossible. Even if a third party
were to start bottom up and do all the organizing and the day to day, if they were to reach major party status they would then be one of the two major parties and would soon act like it.

Structurally we can't have a third (or fourth) party in the true sense of the phrase. A powerless opposition is as effective as no opposition. And the only power alloted to third parties under our system is that of spoiler.

Which is why independents have sometimes gotten power, but never a third party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. One More Problem...Bigger Gridlock...
We see it in countries with Parliamentary systems where several parties vie for power...the more parties the more divided a country and legislature, the more power the small factions can have in dictating their demands to a larger party and can turn the government into a real gambling casinos as votes from the smaller parties are bought and sold. While this may sound attractive for getting a center/left party into the mix, it also opens the door for far right parties as well.

Bottom up is the way parties should be run...and if they get big by appealing to large majorities, so be it. The money will always be an issue, it's just working to elect those who are hungrier to legislate than to enrich themselves.

Cheers...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kansas Wyatt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 09:13 AM
Response to Original message
5. Correction...
Today we have two Parties, and they are:

Radical Republicans

Republican Lite (Democratic Party)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Nope
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kansas Wyatt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Sure....
And we are FREE and have the American Dream, and our Government would never do anything against it's own citizens.

A spade is a spade.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 03:32 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC