AHC: Give The US Multiple Political Parties

[Commissar From Kiev]

This is pretty straightforward. How do we avoid having third parties in the US languish in near-total irrelevance as they do OTL? This doesn't have to involve a full-on multiparty system, but TTL third parties should at least get a stable vote share and some seats in Congress.

I'll take any suggestions you have for such a scenario.

 

[tuxer]

This is pretty straightforward. How do we avoid having third parties in the US languish in near-total irrelevance as they do OTL? This doesn't have to involve a full-on multiparty system, but TTL third parties should at least get a stable vote share and some seats in Congress.

I'll take any suggestions you have for such a scenario.

One way to do it would be having a Washingtonian Democracy- ie ban on political parties at the federal level which could result in parties focusing on their state constituencies, thus allowing - indirectly- for a diverse amount of parties to exist in Congress.

 

[Commissar From Kiev]

One way to do it would be having a Washingtonian Democracy- ie ban on political parties at the federal level which could result in parties focusing on their state constituencies, thus allowing - indirectly- for a diverse amount of parties to exist in Congress.

Excellent suggestion. That would likely lead to a very Balkanized political system and probably a network of unofficial alliances to retain some semblance of order.

 

[Johnrankins]

Which would probably wind up as two national parties in all but name. You probably would need a constitutional convention to pull this off so you can have proportional rep.

 

[Commissar From Kiev]

Which would probably wind up as two national parties in all but name. You probably would need a constitutional convention to pull this off so you can have proportional rep.

Um, was PR a thing in the 1780s?

 

[Johnrankins]

Um, was PR a thing in the 1780s?

Not then, which is why you would need a constitutional convention later.

 

[Steve Brinson]

Um, was PR a thing in the 1780s?

I don't know that it could have been - it would, for one, require political parties, which were not seen as vital at that point. At that point, they still thought they could avert partisan factionalism.

 

[Commissar From Kiev]

Not then, which is why you would need a constitutional convention later.

That would be very hard to pull off. What would be the catalyst?

 

[Minchandre]

Which would probably wind up as two national parties in all but name. You probably would need a constitutional convention to pull this off so you can have proportional rep.

Not necessarily. We're likely to see two (or even one) party states, but at the national level the state parties will form coalitions based on common interests, forming something more similar to a parliamentary system where you have the "government" (the largest bloc), the "opposition" (generally the second largest bloc), and a bunch of malcontents and special interest parties. Early in the country's history, states like Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey are likely to be more of a "swing" between the South and New England

 

[Commissar From Kiev]

Not necessarily. We're likely to see two (or even one) party states, but at the national level the state parties will form coalitions based on common interests, forming something more similar to a parliamentary system where you have the "government" (the largest bloc), the "opposition" (generally the second largest bloc), and a bunch of malcontents and special interest parties. Early in the country's history, states like Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey are likely to be more of a "swing" between the South and New England

I imagine that much of ATL American politics would revolve around the president crafting legislation that appeals to a majority of state parties.
Also, you have a very good point. I could imagine the states basically being two-party, divided between the major groups of each state. After expanded franchise comes around, parties will be even more heterogenous.

 

[tuxer]

Not necessarily. We're likely to see two (or even one) party states, but at the national level the state parties will form coalitions based on common interests, forming something more similar to a parliamentary system where you have the "government" (the largest bloc), the "opposition" (generally the second largest bloc), and a bunch of malcontents and special interest parties. Early in the country's history, states like Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey are likely to be more of a "swing" between the South and New England

That's pretty much my line of thought. It would largely be coalition governments which would result in interesting butterflies. In the long term the Speaker of the House might supplant the president in terms of policy-making power, as the SoH is much more influential and exterts greater impact on Congress than the external presidency.

 

[Commissar From Kiev]

That's pretty much my line of thought. It would largely be coalition governments which would result in interesting butterflies. In the long term the Speaker of the House might supplant the president in terms of policy-making power, as the SoH is much more influential and exterts greater impact on Congress than the external presidency.

Interesting. I imagine the state parties would be aligned along two axes: central government vs. local government, and Northern vs. Southern.

 

[ennobee]

I would suggest that redistricting and cutting of voting districts take a different path. Instead of carving up a district in different parts once it gets too big, let it elect more then one representative. This means that a party that regularly polls at 1/3 of the votes would now get at least one candidate in a four-candidate district, where beforehand it would get none in each of the four split-off districts. this way, a minority issues-based party could still get enough votes on a state and federal level to make its voice heard. In a twist, a party that consistently polls at 35% over all of the US, might even become the biggest party in Washington, just by it polling reasonably good over ALL of the US instead of just being the best in one or two states.

 

[tuxer]

Interesting. I imagine the state parties would be aligned along two axes: central government vs. local government, and Northern vs. Southern.

Such axes might well exist at the federal level- though economic and social policy would play a part specially around the 20th century. Of course coalitions would be formed on whether the federal government should play a direct role in policy-making (like it happens OTL) or merely serve as a national bank to finance the states' policies.

In this scenario, the federal government would be much weaker when compared to OTL, because of the lack of coherent federal policy and stronger state actors. However, withou the divide and conquer strategy of the two-party autocracy Congress would have higher approval ratings. Movements like the Tea Party and the New Deal would have more obstacles and be less capable of pushing their agenda.

Compromise and common interest would dominate Congress because otherwise nothing would get done. For instance you might see a coalition of socially conservative Christian Democrats and socially progressive Social Democrats because of their shared interest in the welfare state, while right-libertarians would be able to field some House seats and maybe the occasional Senator.

This does not mean the president would be a powerless figurehead- there would not exist a executive presidency and presidential elections would focus more on foreign and social policy- but you be suprised how much the president can do with the executive orders alone.

 

[Commissar From Kiev]

Such axes might well exist at the federal level- though economic and social policy would play a part specially around the 20th century. Of course coalitions would be formed on whether the federal government should play a direct role in policy-making (like it happens OTL) or merely serve as a national bank to finance the states' policies.

In this scenario, the federal government would be much weaker when compared to OTL, because of the lack of coherent federal policy and stronger state actors. However, withou the divide and conquer strategy of the two-party autocracy Congress would have higher approval ratings. Movements like the Tea Party and the New Deal would have more obstacles and be less capable of pushing their agenda.

Compromise and common interest would dominate Congress because otherwise nothing would get done. For instance you might see a coalition of socially conservative Christian Democrats and socially progressive Social Democrats because of their shared interest in the welfare state, while right-libertarians would be able to field some House seats and maybe the occasional Senator.

This does not mean the president would be a powerless figurehead- there would not exist a executive presidency and presidential elections would focus more on foreign and social policy- but you be suprised how much the president can do with the executive orders alone.

I see the president becoming something of a peacemaker between the parties and resolving deadlocks via executive orders.

 

[Commissar From Kiev]

So, how might the parties vary by state, early on?

 

[tuxer]

So, how might the parties vary by state, early on?

early on, the state parties might remain similar ideologically to OTL- that is having a agrarian populist party and a urban liberal party like it happened OTL. Overtime, the issue of slavery, industrialization, social strife and westward expansion would change the national politics tremendously. For instance, Oklahomma might preserve its socialist movement, which was strong in the late 19th and early 20th centuries while Appalachian states will certainly develop some sort of Labor Party- the role of the coal industry in the Appalachian economy is just too big for that not to happen. Kentucky, Tennessee and Alabama are likely candidates to have a Labor Party.

One of the problems of the socialists is that the two-party autocracy was too entrenched so if they have to focus on the regional, state politics the left will certainly thrive. It defenitely was doing so OTL before the SPA was crushed by Woodrow Wilson.

 

[Commissar From Kiev]

early on, the state parties might remain similar ideologically to OTL- that is having a agrarian populist party and a urban liberal party like it happened OTL. Overtime, the issue of slavery, industrialization, social strife and westward expansion would change the national politics tremendously. For instance, Oklahomma might preserve its socialist movement, which was strong in the late 19th and early 20th centuries while Appalachian states will certainly develop some sort of Labor Party- the role of the coal industry in the Appalachian economy is just too big for that not to happen. Kentucky, Tennessee and Alabama are likely candidates to have a Labor Party.

One of the problems of the socialists is that the two-party autocracy was too entrenched so if they have to focus on the regional, state politics the left will certainly thrive. It defenitely was doing so OTL before the SPA was crushed by Woodrow Wilson.

Makes sense. I imagine the first areas of distinction would be on Western expansion and slavery.

 

[tuxer]

Makes sense. I imagine the first areas of distinction would be on Western expansion and slavery.

Yes, and the butterflies will be immense. The causus beli of the Civil War will probably be the election of a radical abolitionist, instead of a moderate like Abraham Lincoln.

Lincoln was only chosen by the GOP because he was moderate enough to not completely scare large segments of the electorate but anti-slavery enough to attract the necessary abolitionist New England voters.

With a ban on national parties, Lincoln is unlikely to become president- it would be contrived to do so. You might actually see more bombastic individuals like Andrew Jackson, Teddy Roosevelt and Huey Long as president and a lot less Obamas and Lincolns. Because moderates are only chosen by parties who want to look electable- in this system, there's greater need in stealing the spotlight than there's a need in looking moderate and respectable.

Certainly a drawback.

 

[Commissar From Kiev]

Yes, and the butterflies will be immense. The causus beli of the Civil War will probably be the election of a radical abolitionist, instead of a moderate like Abraham Lincoln.

Lincoln was only chosen by the GOP because he was moderate enough to not completely scare large segments of the electorate but anti-slavery enough to attract the necessary abolitionist New England voters.

With a ban on national parties, Lincoln is unlikely to become president- it would be contrived to do so. You might actually see more bombastic individuals like Andrew Jackson, Teddy Roosevelt and Huey Long as president and a lot less Obamas and Lincolns. Because moderates are only chosen by parties who want to look electable- in this system, there's greater need in stealing the spotlight than there's a need in looking moderate and respectable.

Certainly a drawback.

Yes, but it makes things very interesting. I'd like to think about this some more...