A break from partisanship...

I count 38 active political parties that have fielded candidates in recent national elections:

DIRECTORY OF US POLITICAL PARTIES

America First Party
American Party
American Heritage Party
American Independent Party
American Nazi Party
American Reform Party
Christian Falangist Party of America
Communist Party USA
Constitution Party
Democrat
Family Values Party
Freedom Socialist Party
Grassroots Party
Green Party of the United States (Green Party)
The Greens/Green Party USA (G/GPUSA)
Independence Party
Independent American Party
Labor Party
Libertarian Party
Light Party
Natural Law Party
New Party
New Union Party
Peace & Freedom Party
Prohibition Party
Reform Party
Republican
The Revolution
Socialist Party USA
Socialist Action
Socialist Equality Party
Socialist Labor Party
Socialist Workers Party
Southern Party
Southern Independence Party
U.S. Pacifist Party
We The People Party
Workers World Party

(And I didn't bother including another 13 parties that have as yet neither fielded nor endorsed any candidates.)
==

I think a good question is being "begged" here: Given the number of active political parties in the US, why are we dominated by two parties? are there elements (legislation, media choices, others) that push us to remain limited to two truly viable options, or is this simply reflective of voter choices in this country?

tres, That would be nice, to have more than three major parties, but the reality is most people will not vote for the obvious losers. Having 38 parties is fine, but the two party system still rules, and will continue to do so until a third "major" party can be established. c.i.

But doesn't that require a third party to offer something the voters want enough for the voters to vote for that party? Or is there something else that dictates whether or not a party is truly viable?

One thing that springs to mind is the Presidential debates. Personally, I think that if your party has a dog in that fight, your dog should damned well be welcome at the debates. At a minimum, any candidate who refused to debate another candidate whose name was going to appear on the ballot ought to suffer at the polls for it.

tres, My observations may be way off base, but it seems to me that both parties are beginning to hug the center. c.i.

Hmmmm- here in Australia, parties other than the big two are starting to have a real effect on government.

For example:

Federally, a party actually called the Australian Democrats (but well to the left of your Democrats) holds the balance of power in the upper house. This means that the opposition (Labor Party) and Democrats can stop legislation if they vote together.

In my own state, a group of independents and one Green party member hold the balance of power in the lower house.


All of this makes for very interesting wheeling and dealing and compromise.

dlowan - Is it true that in Australia voting is mandatory?

trespassers will

(I think: yes)

http://www.idea.int/vt/analysis/Compulsory_Voting.cfm

There is a difference between "parties" and "factions". Factions consist of people holding a single viewpoint and see themselves as guardians of "the truth". Therefore, since ther are many different viewpoints, it is rare for a faction to gain a majority and coalition governments (inherently unstable) are the rule. Parties have members who may hold differing ideas : there are conservative Democrats (and even liberal Republicans!) Even when a country has a parliamentary system (UK), the gevernment is likely to be more stable.

Even though I'm a flaming liberal, Georgeob, I agree with this unreservedly. And as a liberal, I've tried to open up this subject in predominantly liberal forums without success. It's hard to admit one's own faults... But you are right and it's one of the main reasons (I believe) we're in disarray as a political group and can't figure out why. We do not see the limitations and social rules we rather self-righteously like to impose on others. I wouldn't say we've quite become little Ashcrofts, but we need to do some reexamination...

Uh-oh -- now I'm in trouble!

tartarin: no trouble at all but a comment, historically i too have feared the invasion of personal rights from the liberal element, however it seems to me that the neo-conservative that we see now is even worse especially regarding religion/abortion/education.

The essay to beat all essays on precisely these matters is "Two Concepts of Liberty" by Isaiah Berlin.... here is a link to a commentary on this work... http://tlrdoc.free.fr/pages/berlin.htm

blatham, Do us all a favor, and summarize your link into one, concise, all inclusive, paragraph - no longer than 500 words. c.i.

c.i.- Ya mean the "Reader's Digest" version!

Lots of folks have done just that, c.i., here's one that's about 500 words:


http://www.libertyhaven.com/theoreticalorphilosophicalissues/libertarianism/conceptslib.html


There are many other critiques and commentaries; its a pretty well known work in political philosiophy..




timber

timber, You are a gentleman and a scholar. That was somewhat better. thx, c.i.

Thanks Blatham! Forgotten about that.

Which do you chafe at more: legal restrictions or peer pressure?

Good question, Tartar. It would depend on the environment, I would think, such as in ghettos. Peer pressure (mostly from gang environments) would probably override any legal restrictions. c.i.

Cicerone -- I lived outside of the US for a long, long time and when I finally came back one of the first things I noticed was the much greater laxity of law ("much more forgiving now," friends said!) and the greater urge towards conformity, a greater yielding to peer opinion. A lot of that probably has to do with the tremendous increase in communications -- TV entertainment ("You DIDN'T see Seinfeld last night??!!") and news ("I don't know -- what does Safire say?")

Tartar, You may have observed more laxity of law, but what do you suppose caused that? Do you really think it's "conformity, peer pressure, and t.v.?" No free rides..... c.i.

Tartarin
Try political correctness and a very permissive society as a cause for the changes you have seen.