Does the U.S. need a competitive third party? And would anyone even vote for one? In this episode of Crash Course Big Questions on U.S. Government we’ll investigate why it feels like the U.S. is trapp
It's impossible to compete with the campaign resources of the two main parties. Public campaign financing could level the electoral playing field tho. Parties meeting a signature threshold would qualify for public funding, while uniform spending caps would prevent major parties from outspending emerging rivals.
This would give voters a more balanced view of their options, including smaller parties, while giving those parties a better opportunity to grow.
The UK also has single member constituencies and "First past the post" (plurality wins), yet they have long had far more than Two parties represented in their National Legislature.. Some of those are "Regional" parties - coming from areas like Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland - but it has long had three "biggish" parties (admittedly, one of those rarely wins elections but it is always represented in Parliament. Furthermore, as I write, it seems like the oldest of the "Big Two" is in danger of being decimated by a relatively New Party (less than 20 years old).
So there may be something else at work in the US rather than just the single member constituencies and "First past the post"...
Will there be a future episode on political nonvoters/apathy? Speaking as a former cynical nonvoter, something I'd like everyone to realize is that a withheld vote isn't a vote of disapproval for the current system or bold stance. It's a tacit approval of the status quo. And that in itself is a political statement, one suggesting that your life is comfortable enough mostly thanks to those who came and voted before you. That you don't fear much, such as discrimination, is thanks to the laws and policies enacted by all those who participated in the political process before you, and we can't take all of those things for granted. And that's not to shame those who want to vote but are de facto prevented from doing so. That's yet another issue that should receive more attention.
The electoral system for the most part is the big reason why you never see a third-party with its win or take all system. Really think about it? Ross Perot won a hair under 19% of overall votes in 1992 ninth, almost 1/5 Americans voted for a third-party and got zero seats… The system isn’t broken. It’s working exactly as intended.
4:15 It would be lovely if Democrats were in the lower left of that graph, but in terms of actual policy and practice they are pretty much dead center, or slightly right of center.
We use cookies, device fingerprinting and cross-device tracking to personalise content, serve targeted advertising, and analyse how you use our site across your devices. By clicking Accept all you consent to the use of these tracking technologies. Your data may be used to build a profile of your interests and show you personalised ads on other sites.
Privacy policy
Comments (20)
Daily Junction discussion mixed with clearly attributed comments from the original video provider.
Join in — free. Comments on Daily Junction are for members, so real names stay rare and bots stay out.
One field. We email you a 6-digit code — no password needed. Your comment is kept while you do it.
Under 13? You’ll need a parent’s OK first — it takes them one click.
This would give voters a more balanced view of their options, including smaller parties, while giving those parties a better opportunity to grow.
So there may be something else at work in the US rather than just the single member constituencies and "First past the post"...