Why do Americans have only two parlament in their Congress?

Post Reply New Topic

Why do Americans have only two parties in their (parlament) Congress?


I wonder why this is so, in European parliaments is usually several political parties.

There are a number of reasons.
One, the congress positions are apportioned according to territory. Each state gets two senators, and a number of representatives based on their population. These representative positions are divided into individual land based districts, in which the largest recipients gets the position. This inclines toward consolidation.
Secondly, the Democratic and Republican parties, starting in the 1880's began working together to create election laws which favor their parties and make it difficult for candidates from other parties to get on the ballot and to run their campaigns.
As such, candidates from minor parties rarely win seats in congress. Sometimes independent and minor party candidates do win in rare instances. There are a few congressional districts in the country where there are third party candidates with a decent shot at winning, in this coming election.

This is good, in my opinion, the dominance of one or two large parties is not good for anyone.

But on other hand to much parties are no good either.
You have, for example, the minimum age of 21 for alcohol, it's a bit extreme but in some extend it's good law, less accidents at least on the paper . I wonder why none of the populist party made no attempt to break the political capital on it, for example, red or some other "national socialists"
To win over embittered young Americans in their "brown ranks"

Good question. And the above is a good answer. Our system is very territory based. Our reps come from particular districts within states. In some European countries every legislator represents the whole country (which may be only the size of a US state.

Also we have the "the First Past the Post" system of election (kind winner take all) which favors big parties, and tends to punish small parties.

Mainland European countries tend to have many little splinter parties.

But despite having a parliamentary system Britain is like the US, as I understand it, and tends to fall into two major parties. Though the UK seems to have three dominant parties right now. Brits can correct me if I am wrong.

As far as I know, the Conservatives and Labour Parties are the two dominant parties in the UK, with the Liberals a little behind the "Tories" (Conservatives) and Labourites.

Before the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America which established the popular election of federal senators by the people of the states, the Constitution required that senators were to be nominated and selected by the legislatures of their state.

The Founders’ logic was that, because the citizenry was already represented by federal representatives, senators should, instead, represent the government of each state. This required as much or more time spent by senators within their home states because legislators would lobby the senators to vote as the legislators wished. Because of this specialized representation, the legislatures could (and frequently did) replace one or both of their senators at any time which the legislatures desired.

Of course, this caused most senators to be strictly beholden to those who kept them in office ... the legislators. As a result, the people were adequately represented by their federal representatives and the senators who were appointed by the legislators whom the citizens voted into office and often knew well. In this way, the citizens' influence was paramount.

Ultimately, the citizens controlled both federal houses and maintained especially strong control over the senators who could lose their jobs in an instant if they failed to do what their legislative masters desired. Sensibly, most legislators would follow the wishes of their local voters.

Today, senators appear to ignore their home states or citizens, and appear to serve themselves and their contributors. In my opinion, the provisions created by the amendment were functionally unnecessary and even did damage to the traditional relationship between citizen voters and their federal senators.

Last edited by AspieUtah on 15 Aug 2016, 5:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Yep....the "direct election of Senators" was a heavy-duty issue contemporaneous with the issue of women suffrage.

But, it also could have been titled the "Senatorial Tenure Protection Amendment" considering that, absent a resignation or impeachment, it keeps senators in office for six years (or more) regardless of what the senators' constituents wish. Six years is a long time in U.S. politics, so the offer presented to senators was: "Represent your state governments, play nice with your state legislators and you can outlast the president." The offer was a way to balance the influence among the federal branches and the wary state governments.

One of my great-granduncles served as the first federal senator from Utah. He was "recalled" a few years later by the Utah Legislature which didn't agree with his "Free Silver" ideas. At the time, the legislature wanted to play nice with the federal government that had just created the state.

Had the amendment been ratified then, my uncle would have likely flouted the will of the citizens through their elected legislators ... exactly as many senators do today. As the Congress now functions, every American citizen has two senators who really act as representatives for all practical purposes.

^ Yes, I'm with those who think the 17th amendment, providing for direct election of senators, was a disaster for the republic. It would be at the top of my list of things to repeal.

In terms of the House, I believe the US is now the second-least representative major democracy in the world, after India. Each US Representative represents about 700,000 people today; at the time of ratification it was below 50,000.

One of the original amendments to the Constitution along with the Bill of Rights set a maximum of 50,000 people per Representative. That amendment is still technically pending after 230 years. I think it should be passed:

http://www.thirty-thousand.org/

On occasion third party candidates have run for Congressional seats. Bernie Sanders is a socialist (by his own declaration). Third parties do not do well in American politics.

The democratic and republican parties have worked together to produce election laws which act to benefit their own parties in elections while making it difficult for minor party and independent candidates to get on ballots.

viewtopic.php?t=327257

Yep, thats right. Liberals formed a coalition with the Conservatives in 2010. People opted toward the third choice i think more out of frustration and disappointment with the two main parties. In the media especially, the coalition played out with the Liberals being portrayed as being quite limp and ineffectual.

They would have to move the House of Reps. to RFK Stadium to accommodate the 6000 blowhard politicians you would need in order provide representation at that archaic 50K to one ratio! Would that really be practical?

That's why I don't go for "strict constructionism" when it comes to the Constitution. The Constitution was formulated in the 18th century; it was based on 18th century conditions.

It's like somebody being a "strict constructionist" when it comes to the Bible. A "strict constructionist" would feel that certain punishments, like crucifixion, would have applicability to the 21st century. They would feel that barter would be the best economic model.

As with the pre-Seventeenth Amendment period, U.S. senators, at least, acted more so in their states than in the Congress proper. Apart from voting, their activities weren't so dependent on residing in Washington. If the Congress were to enjoy thousands of members, it has already been proposed that most members would vote and otherwise interact digitally with their assigned committees and other members, while a core number of members of say, 535, would cast their own votes as well as confirming the votes of those members from their states who would be absent from the congressional chambers. This core number of members could easily be selected from a rotating pool among the absent members like juries are selected today. So, if New York enjoyed 1,500 members of the Congress, 29 of them at a time would rotate through the actual, physical offices on Capitol Hill. All very feasable.