Essay talk:America's Two-Party Monopoly

The problem is a structural one. With the 'first past the post'-style voting the US uses, if there's more than two parties who actually have ANY shot at winning, you get Ross-Perot-Induced electoral results. --Gulik 23:47, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

I agree

I agree, the biggest of the third parties, the Libertarian Party, has less than 1%. In fact, the most famous party is the Communist Party USA, and the historical version of it.

This is like the Coke and Pepsi monopoly; that is why I have a party. We need to stop it, any ideas? Colbert|Fan^{Britons are people too!} 21:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Federalism

One thing that amazes me about the US is the uniformity of its voting systems, given its federal structure. FPTP is the major cause of the two-party monopoly in the US and elsewhere. Some form of proportional representation is the answer. Why does just about everywhere in the US use this? Given that US states control their own voting systems, the way forward would be to introduce proportional representation in one state. (Probably best a small state that has a willingness to be different, like Vermont.) If the two party monopoly can be broken in one state, other states could follow. --Maratrean (talk) 07:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's because FPTP gives each party the chance of an absolute majority once in a while. Also, it fits with a part of the American psyche - Americans like a clear winner rather than the fudgy compromises of fair representation. It's also easier to understand (whoever gets most votes is the winner, everyone else goes home) which appeals to people of limited understanding. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)