AHC: Have America Develop Regional Parties?

[Commissar From Kiev]

In Canadian history, the two-party monopoly of the Liberals and Conservatives was broken by left-wing (and later right-wing) regional parties from the Prairie, like the Progressives, CCF, and Social Credit.

I had to wonder, what could make America develop similar regional parties? Thus, I present my challenge: have one or two stable third parties, ones who regularly win seats in Congress, become dominant in specific regions of the country, i.e. Populists who are dominant in western state governments.

Are you up to it?

 

[overoceans]

Do you mean regional parties in the sense of parties that only win seats in certain regions, even if they run candidates elsewhere, or parties that only RUN in certain regions?

Because, going back to Canada, I don't think the CCF qualifies as a regional party under the second definition, as I believe they ran candidates across the country.

Not sure about Social Credit. The impression I get is that they ran candidates from BC to the the maritimes(inconsistently on the latter), but mostly won on the prairies and Quebec.

It seems to me that in the US, regional tensions that in other places might manifest themselves in separate parties get streamed into one of the two major parties. Not sure why that is, but it isn't entirely unique to the US. These days, apart from the BQ(which seems possibly to be on its sickbed), there are no parties in Canada that are really regionalist in any meaningful sense.

 

[Expat]

It seems to me that in the US, regional tensions that in other places might manifest themselves in separate parties get streamed into one of the two major parties.

This is very much true. There have been several official examples, like the DFLP in Minnesota or the NPL in North Dakota, which are both the official surrogates of the state Democratic Party in both states. New York has conjoined third-parties on both sides of the aisle in the form of the Conservative, Liberal, and Working Families parties. Cincinnati still runs Democrat/Charterites.

Slightly less official, but more to the OP's point, there are the Dixiecrats, which are probably your best bet for a real regional party. They have their own particular priorities, and it's easy to imagine the Republican Party rejecting them at the same time the Democrats push them out. They could be a viable third party within their region, maybe occasionally straying into the Midwest or Southwest to pick up some local seats.

 

[Commissar From Kiev]

Do you mean regional parties in the sense of parties that only win seats in certain regions, even if they run candidates elsewhere, or parties that only RUN in certain regions?

Because, going back to Canada, I don't think the CCF qualifies as a regional party under the second definition, as I believe they ran candidates across the country.

Not sure about Social Credit. The impression I get is that they ran candidates from BC to the the maritimes(inconsistently on the latter), but mostly won on the prairies and Quebec.

It seems to me that in the US, regional tensions that in other places might manifest themselves in separate parties get streamed into one of the two major parties. Not sure why that is, but it isn't entirely unique to the US. These days, apart from the BQ(which seems possibly to be on its sickbed), there are no parties in Canada that are really regionalist in any meaningful sense.

By 'regional', I meant that their support base is located in a specific region. But a regionalist party, the likes of Southern states' rights party, for example, would work too.

 

[Commissar From Kiev]

This is very much true. There have been several official examples, like the DFLP in Minnesota or the NPL in North Dakota, which are both the official surrogates of the state Democratic Party in both states. New York has conjoined third-parties on both sides of the aisle in the form of the Conservative, Liberal, and Working Families parties. Cincinnati still runs Democrat/Charterites.

Slightly less official, but more to the OP's point, there are the Dixiecrats, which are probably your best bet for a real regional party. They have their own particular priorities, and it's easy to imagine the Republican Party rejecting them at the same time the Democrats push them out. They could be a viable third party within their region, maybe occasionally straying into the Midwest or Southwest to pick up some local seats.

I would imagine that a Southern party would work, but I was aiming more for a party that runs candidates across the country, but draws support from a specific area.

 

[OnlyAlb]

The Farm Labor Party of Minnesota merged with the Democratic Party of Minnesota.

In New York there are also minor third parties that have played an important role in the past, like the Conservative Party.

 

[overoceans]

I was aiming more for a party that runs candidates across the country, but draws support from a specific area

Well, in that sense, I guess parties go through what might be called "regional phases", like the Democrats in 1952 and 1956, at least going by states won in the presidential election.

Of course, those periods tend to be temporary, but then, if the parties your envisioning are running candidates across the country, they're likely expecting their own "regionalist" phases to be temporary as well.

 

[Expat]

I would imagine that a Southern party would work, but I was aiming more for a party that runs candidates across the country, but draws support from a specific area.

A "southern whites" party would probably be able to draw on some support in certain other parts of the country- as I mentioned, the Midwest and Southwest for sure, but also maybe some unlikely places like South Boston, or any other place where strong white ethnic identities form in competition with minorities. There's really little functional difference between the racism leveled at southern blacks and, for example, Native Americans in the Dakotas.

I guess the next biggest opportunity after that would be to take advantage of the Progressive Movement (or one of them, anyway). There are several great timelines on the board that look at this happening, but they mostly either see the Progressive replace one of the other two parties, or see the whole system fracture to the point where a new form of government is needed.

And that's really the problem with American democracy vis smaller parties: it's just not set up to handle anything other than a straightforward, simple majority for the purposes of determining who's in charge.

 

[Lost Freeway]

I would imagine that a Southern party would work, but I was aiming more for a party that runs candidates across the country, but draws support from a specific area.

That pretty much describes the OTL Democratic Party pre-CRA.

 

[Commissar From Kiev]

A "southern whites" party would probably be able to draw on some support in certain other parts of the country- as I mentioned, the Midwest and Southwest for sure, but also maybe some unlikely places like South Boston, or any other place where strong white ethnic identities form in competition with minorities. There's really little functional difference between the racism leveled at southern blacks and, for example, Native Americans in the Dakotas.

I guess the next biggest opportunity after that would be to take advantage of the Progressive Movement (or one of them, anyway). There are several great timelines on the board that look at this happening, but they mostly either see the Progressive replace one of the other two parties, or see the whole system fracture to the point where a new form of government is needed.

And that's really the problem with American democracy vis smaller parties: it's just not set up to handle anything other than a straightforward, simple majority for the purposes of determining who's in charge.

Yeah, it is an issue. Out of curiosity, do you think there would be any circumstances that could make America shift to a different style of politics, perhaps the two-and-a-half party system seen in Commonwealth nations? In Canada, we sustain multiple parties under FPTP via regional two-party systems.
I'd imagined a populist party sustaining itself largely at the state level in the west, often displacing the Democrats as the main opposition to the GOP in state legislatures.

 

[jahenders]

I think we've had elements of this in times past, but not sustained.

For instance, prior to the civil war, there were political groups that weren't parties and somewhat went across parties. At times there were essentially a Southern Group (protection/expansion of slavery), Northern Group (abolition, union, expansion without slavery), and a Western Group (expand West, preference for without slavery, but better expansion with slavery than non-expansion).

I remember playing a group game that depicted this in high school. We had 6-8 kids in each group and each group had semi-secret goals and point potential. The 3 groups would then "caucus" individually and then meet together to negotiate deals and get bills passed. I was in the Western Group. We won because we were able to get a bill passed that gave us almost all of our biggest point things, gave the North some of their goals, and gave the South a few things -- we crushed everyone els.

In Canadian history, the two-party monopoly of the Liberals and Conservatives was broken by left-wing (and later right-wing) regional parties from the Prairie, like the Progressives, CCF, and Social Credit.

I had to wonder, what could make America develop similar regional parties? Thus, I present my challenge: have one or two stable third parties, ones who regularly win seats in Congress, become dominant in specific regions of the country, i.e. Populists who are dominant in western state governments.

Are you up to it?

 

[Politibrit]

In Canadian history, the two-party monopoly of the Liberals and Conservatives was broken by left-wing (and later right-wing) regional parties from the Prairie, like the Progressives, CCF, and Social Credit.

I had to wonder, what could make America develop similar regional parties? Thus, I present my challenge: have one or two stable third parties, ones who regularly win seats in Congress, become dominant in specific regions of the country, i.e. Populists who are dominant in western state governments.

Are you up to it?

The most obvious way to do it would be to have a different kind of voting system in the US similar to what they have in the rest of the world, some form of AV in Presidential elections would probably break the duopoly of Democrats and Republicans, but that might favour nationwide parties a bit more than regional ones. So maybe also have some kind of PR in Congress too. Maybe this comes about as a consequence of consistent deadlock and hung electoral colleges, maybe around the turn of the century when you had several parties who could pull in a number of votes at an elections, particularly the Progressive Party.
I was actually having a think recently about what parties might turn up in the US if it had PR, and I basically came to the conclusion that it would depend on when it is introduced, as the opportunity to vote a regional party into office is likely going to perpetuate certain regional identities independent of the US. There would almost certainly be some kind of Southern or Confederate Party at some point, which might strangle the growth of any regional parties within the Southern states themselves ie Texan nationalists. If you went way back and had it from the inception of the US, you might see a New England party emerge as there was a degree of regionalist sentiment in that area in the early 19th century. I cant think of many other places though, maybe California?
If you also want third parties with strong regional support that are not exclusive to that one region, you'd probably also have a centre left party like Socialists/Social Democrats/Progressives who are strong in the north and California inner cities, and might penetrate into primarily African American cities in the South if they stuck themselves at the forefront of the civil rights movement whilst the Democrats would likely be too cautious in fear of losing their broad middle of the road appeal. You'd probably also have a far right party or two which is strongly free market libertarian and/or nationalist that would be strong in the south and midwest.

 

[Commissar From Kiev]

The most obvious way to do it would be to have a different kind of voting system in the US similar to what they have in the rest of the world, some form of AV in Presidential elections would probably break the duopoly of Democrats and Republicans, but that might favour nationwide parties a bit more than regional ones. So maybe also have some kind of PR in Congress too. Maybe this comes about as a consequence of consistent deadlock and hung electoral colleges, maybe around the turn of the century when you had several parties who could pull in a number of votes at an elections, particularly the Progressive Party.
I was actually having a think recently about what parties might turn up in the US if it had PR, and I basically came to the conclusion that it would depend on when it is introduced, as the opportunity to vote a regional party into office is likely going to perpetuate certain regional identities independent of the US. There would almost certainly be some kind of Southern or Confederate Party at some point, which might strangle the growth of any regional parties within the Southern states themselves ie Texan nationalists. If you went way back and had it from the inception of the US, you might see a New England party emerge as there was a degree of regionalist sentiment in that area in the early 19th century. I cant think of many other places though, maybe California?
If you also want third parties with strong regional support that are not exclusive to that one region, you'd probably also have a centre left party like Socialists/Social Democrats/Progressives who are strong in the north and California inner cities, and might penetrate into primarily African American cities in the South if they stuck themselves at the forefront of the civil rights movement whilst the Democrats would likely be too cautious in fear of losing their broad middle of the road appeal. You'd probably also have a far right party or two which is strongly free market libertarian and/or nationalist that would be strong in the south and midwest.

I'd imagine that, in the case of the US having some kind of PR, there would be centrist and liberal Democrats, mainstream conservative Republicans, Social Democrats, Libertarians, and a Christian Right/Nationalist party.

 

[Expat]

Yeah, it is an issue. Out of curiosity, do you think there would be any circumstances that could make America shift to a different style of politics, perhaps the two-and-a-half party system seen in Commonwealth nations? In Canada, we sustain multiple parties under FPTP via regional two-party systems.
I'd imagined a populist party sustaining itself largely at the state level in the west, often displacing the Democrats as the main opposition to the GOP in state legislatures.

I feel like Ruins of the American Party System does that pretty well, though I also feel like I've seen it elsewhere, too. "Ruins" splits things more than one way, but I think it's pretty easy to imagine an alternate-alternate history where things don't split quite so much.

Back to the idea of a southern party, segregation is such a high-salience issue that I think it could maintain itself without the prospect of national power as long as it can maintain the balance of local power. Those people *reeeeally* wanted segregation. If the GOP hadn't let them in and the Democrats had kicked them out, they wouldn't have reformed, they would've gone independent.

Of course a Progressive Party is more fun to think about.
The question is, what makes them different from the Republicans and Democrats?

 

[Commissar From Kiev]

I feel like Ruins of the American Party System does that pretty well, though I also feel like I've seen it elsewhere, too. "Ruins" splits things more than one way, but I think it's pretty easy to imagine an alternate-alternate history where things don't split quite so much.

Back to the idea of a southern party, segregation is such a high-salience issue that I think it could maintain itself without the prospect of national power as long as it can maintain the balance of local power. Those people *reeeeally* wanted segregation. If the GOP hadn't let them in and the Democrats had kicked them out, they wouldn't have reformed, they would've gone independent.

Of course a Progressive Party is more fun to think about.
The question is, what makes them different from the Republicans and Democrats?

I'm always attracted to the idea of a stable Progressive Party.
What about a TL where there are two minor parties as well as the Democrats and Republicans. There's a Midwestern-based Progressive Party and a right-wing party that started off as pro-segregation, but got 're-branded' in the 1980s to appeal to the Christian Right. So basically you get a four party political spectrum that goes from social democrat to liberal to conservative to Tea Party.

 

[Ariosto]

Any Populist Party based in the American South would definitely fit the bill. As others have mentioned we presently have Huey Long's Commonwealth Party in "Ruins of the American Party System", in some scenarios George Wallace's American Independent Party manages to maintain itself going forward but with its base in the Deep South and states like Idaho and Utah.

There are also the Farmer-Labor and Populist Parties that depended upon the farmer and labor vote in the West, but to my knowledge the former did not experience much success outside of Minnesota, nor do I know why it managed to be so successful in that particular state.

There were Conservative Parties in the South following the Civil War that were Democratic in all but name, but if the Democratic Party were somehow subsumed by the Liberal Republican Party following a successful effort in the '72 Presidential Election and they promptly slide left on Civil Rights issues, these Conservative Parties could form the basis of a new but largely regional party that could cooperate with the Liberal Republicans much like in Germany the Christian Social Union cooperates with the Christian Democratic Union.​

 

[Commissar From Kiev]

Any Populist Party based in the American South would definitely fit the bill. As others have mentioned we presently have Huey Long's Commonwealth Party in "Ruins of the American Party System", in some scenarios George Wallace's American Independent Party manages to maintain itself going forward but with its base in the Deep South and states like Idaho and Utah.

There are also the Farmer-Labor and Populist Parties that depended upon the farmer and labor vote in the West, but to my knowledge the former did not experience much success outside of Minnesota, nor do I know why it managed to be so successful in that particular state.​

Well, I could imagine a Midwestern Progressive Party being reasonably successful.

There were Conservative Parties in the South following the Civil War that were Democratic in all but name, but if the Democratic Party were somehow subsumed by the Liberal Republican Party following a successful effort in the '72 Presidential Election and they promptly slide left on Civil Rights issues, these Conservative Parties could form the basis of a new but largely regional party that could cooperate with the Liberal Republicans much like in Germany the Christian Social Union cooperates with the Christian Democratic Union.

​

Not sure I follow.

 

[Commissar From Kiev]

Does anyone think a centrist party similar to the Lib-Dems in the UK could work as a third party in the US?

 

[wilcoxchar]

Could a statist but socially conservative third party in Appalachia and the Tennessee Valley maintain a support base for long?

 

[Ariosto]

Not sure I follow.

The Democratic label in the South was considered too synonymous with those that had advocated for secession, so many Democrats and even some Whigs remolded themselves as Conservatives who were Democrats in all but name. However they did not have much influence outside of North Carolina and Virginia in the long-term.

So lets say that following the successful election of a Liberal Republican in '72, and for the case of this scenario lets assume that Salmon Chase managed to net the nomination following a deadlock at their convention. In time either the Liberal or Democratic Parties, whichever consumed the other, begins to shift left on the issue of Civil Rights, which causes unease among their voting bloc in the South. The Conservative Party, rather than fold tent and rejoin, opt to maintain a separate Party to try and force concessions from the Northern-based Party in return for their support in Congress and in National elections. In turn, the Liberal Democratic Party starts to instead support Conservative nominees in those states or districts where its own support is weak in an effort to maximize the representation of both Parties in both state and federal government.

Any clearer? ​