How does the UK manage to have an (albeit shitty) multiparty system with first past the post voting when the US has never been able to break out of the two party system?
In: Other
Because that’s the way our system was created. If it had been created as a FPTP system, it would be. Once the status quo has been established it stays the status quo until something revolutionary happens.
Because the people in charge of those two parties don’t want a multiparty system. If we had more than two choices, they might lose their jobs.
The idea that the UK’s system is a multiparty system is…basically just an illusion. All of the parties always coalesce into two coalitions after every single election;
1) Labour always lead a mix of LibDems, Plaid Cymru, Sinn Fein, Greens, and SNP, all of which largely vote the same way, but all of which compete against each other for votes.
2) Tories typically don’t need to form a coalition, but even without the need they typically end up alongside DUP and other right-leaning parties (e.g. Reform, formerly UKIP).
On the Left, the primary difference is just between Labour and the three devolved national parties, and that’s just about local sovereignty in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
On the Right, the Tories have typically maintained a larger group that hasn’t needed coalitions, and as a result they historically have had a tendency to win elections in part *because* they don’t have to worry about vote splitters on their half of British politics.
Put a different way; the British Left would likely be a hell of a lot more successful at a national level if they were one party instead of several, and a major aspect of why they’ve won in *this* election is because so much of the conservative vote ended up being split.
One thing that hasn’t been mentioned is that a UK constituency (55-70K voters) is FAR smaller than a US congressional district (~750K residents, perhaps 500K voters).
It is far more likely that a candidate in the UK can be very visible and known to their constituents at a personal level. This allows for a variety of candidates to win locally (regardless of party affiliation).
It is far more difficult for a US congressional candidate to reach out and touch 500K voters – hence they need a large organization (think time and $$$) to conduct a successful campaign. This puts a lot more power into the hands of the party with the $$$ and grassroots organization. It also means that candidates in the US have far more incentive to focus on big picture national issues further removed from local politics which again favor large parties who can essentially market themselves across many districts with more consistent messaging.
There are multiple parties in the US – Libertarian and Green Party to name a few. There are some states with a long history of 3rd party/independents in office (Angus King from Maine is a great example).
The Presidential Election (who we directly elect) in the US requires an absolute majority to win, 270 electoral votes (think points you get per state won with more populated states worth more ‘points’ than smaller ones). This really hinders the development of any major 3rd party, because if nobody wins it goes to congress to decide on who becomes President. And while this may seem normal for a person from the UK, the times Congress has held a contingent election it has been pretty controversial and gone against the person who has won (look at the 1828 election for example).
The other thing, even with as many parties as countries like the UK and Canada have it becomes functionally a 2 party system with coalition governments. Our two parties just combine those coalitions into one party with different factions that are often voted on during primaries. While voter participation in primary elections is poor, it is where the Democrats can pick between a Progressive candidate and a more Center-Left Candidate or a Republican can pick a Hard Right candidate vs more moderate candidate (Think of this like voting between Reform and Tory for example).
The reason is because the United States has a much more complicated political structure than the United Kingdom. We have local governments that come in many variations, state governments, and the federal government, and 3 different branches at the federal and state levels. For most politicians in the United States, they are “cultivated” for leadership positions by the parties from the very ground level, and most (not all) politicians begin their lives at a local level and work their way up through state and then federal positions. This begins with something as simple as local school boards. The party apparatus required to maintain such a structure is complex, and well established by the two main parties, who stand in opposition to each other. The multiple third parties we have in this country simply don’t have the infrastructure in place to groom and support a significant number of candidates to progress through this complex political maze. In addition, there are primary elections that have certain rules in participation, and there’s gerrymandering, of course. The political process in the United Kingdom and other countries is much simpler for third parties to participate in because there are not so many layers in the process, and they don’t all have primary races (although some do). I’m sure I’m missing some aspects others can fill in.
How? The UK had their system long before the USA. The USA built their system to be different. So the how is that they did not have America’s founding fathers setting up a different system.
I have two main thoughts on this:
1. Most 3rd parties in the UK are regional parties: SNP, Plaid Cymru. and the mess that is Northern Ireland.
There are no analogues to this in the US. People might joke about Texas succeeding, but a Texas Freedom party is never going to win a congressional district.
2. The districts are smaller.
The UK has 650(?) districts vs 435 in the US. If I did the math right US districts have 7.6x the population of the UK. This means each individual vote in the UK is worth more. With more seats and less population per seat the unlikely event of a 3rd party winning a seat becomes more likely. This is self perpetuating as once 3rd parties can win seats people are more likely to support them and leads to more seats.
UK is a parliamentary system, USA is a Presidential system. That affects the game since in a parliamentary system, reducing someone’s majority can lead to a weaker PM and force a coalition. You can’t weaken the President this way with executive orders
[removed]
Latest Answers