The UK has first-past-the-post in the for electing parliamentarians just as the US has first-past-the-post. Blaming the problems on first-past-the-post doesn’t explain the difference.
Closer to the US you have Canada that has a first-past-the-post and has 5 political parties who have parliamentarians with in the House of Commons.
The idea that you don’t get more than two parties just because you have first-past-the-post isn’t based on good reasoning.
The US does have more than 2 parties though. I think the argument being made is less about there being only 2 parties and more to do with how power is distributed. In a FPTP system, you will really only have 2 major parties that swap power around, even if a third party can attract a significant number of votes. That is essentially the main strength of FPTP, it almost always produces a dominant victor. In practice the Canadian system has seen power swap between the Conservatives and Liberals. In the UK power has swapped between the Conservatives and Labour. In India, power has swapped between the BJP and the INC. In Mexico there have only ever been 2 parties. I’ve tried to find more examples but unfortunately most countries with FPTP do not have good wikipedia pages for electoral results.
The US does seem to have a uniquely dysfunctional system, but I don’t really see any significant evidence from other countries with FPTP of third parties being able to enact real change.
The UK just left the European union because of pressures from UKIP. Now, third parties have less seats than before but they did produce change.
Furthermore, parties in FPTP don’t vote in block in the same way they do in states with proportional representation. A parliamentarian in a FPTP can often affect law without having to be in the majority coalition. Pork is likely the best way to measure individual power. You don’t see pork that’s added to bills completely shift in the US congress and senate when the congressional or senate majorities change.
Indirectly, pressure from UKIP led to the current Brexit situation—which as gjm points out, has not yet resulted in the UK leaving. However, UKIP’s vote increase didn’t cause Brexit, it simply led to a referendum. But the conservatives could have easily not called the referendum in the end since UKIP’s high vote share did not translate into any seats in government. I think it’s much easier to pin the blame on Cameron’s arrogance and putting party politics ahead of country, than it is on UKIP.
Nonetheless, even if you do not agree with that assessment, Brexit remains one data point. I am not personally aware of any other such events occuring in the likes of Canada or India, or similar examples in the UK.
I know little of the US pork barrel system, so can’t offer comment on that.
The UK has not left the European Union. It has (narrowly) voted to do so, and it has issued the EU with formal notification of its intention to leave, and the obvious assumption is that it will in fact leave, but right now the UK is still in the EU and it’s probably not impossible for it to stay in if its politicians thought they would improve their chances of reelection by making that happen.
I agree that UKIP seems to have had a lot of influence despite being a small party. I do wonder whether a group with similar goals that wasn’t an actual political party could have had comparable influence, but on the whole I think probably not.
The UK has first-past-the-post in the for electing parliamentarians just as the US has first-past-the-post. Blaming the problems on first-past-the-post doesn’t explain the difference.
Closer to the US you have Canada that has a first-past-the-post and has 5 political parties who have parliamentarians with in the House of Commons.
The idea that you don’t get more than two parties just because you have first-past-the-post isn’t based on good reasoning.
The US does have more than 2 parties though. I think the argument being made is less about there being only 2 parties and more to do with how power is distributed. In a FPTP system, you will really only have 2 major parties that swap power around, even if a third party can attract a significant number of votes. That is essentially the main strength of FPTP, it almost always produces a dominant victor. In practice the Canadian system has seen power swap between the Conservatives and Liberals. In the UK power has swapped between the Conservatives and Labour. In India, power has swapped between the BJP and the INC. In Mexico there have only ever been 2 parties. I’ve tried to find more examples but unfortunately most countries with FPTP do not have good wikipedia pages for electoral results.
The US does seem to have a uniquely dysfunctional system, but I don’t really see any significant evidence from other countries with FPTP of third parties being able to enact real change.
The UK just left the European union because of pressures from UKIP. Now, third parties have less seats than before but they did produce change.
Furthermore, parties in FPTP don’t vote in block in the same way they do in states with proportional representation. A parliamentarian in a FPTP can often affect law without having to be in the majority coalition. Pork is likely the best way to measure individual power. You don’t see pork that’s added to bills completely shift in the US congress and senate when the congressional or senate majorities change.
Indirectly, pressure from UKIP led to the current Brexit situation—which as gjm points out, has not yet resulted in the UK leaving. However, UKIP’s vote increase didn’t cause Brexit, it simply led to a referendum. But the conservatives could have easily not called the referendum in the end since UKIP’s high vote share did not translate into any seats in government. I think it’s much easier to pin the blame on Cameron’s arrogance and putting party politics ahead of country, than it is on UKIP.
Nonetheless, even if you do not agree with that assessment, Brexit remains one data point. I am not personally aware of any other such events occuring in the likes of Canada or India, or similar examples in the UK.
I know little of the US pork barrel system, so can’t offer comment on that.
The UK has not left the European Union. It has (narrowly) voted to do so, and it has issued the EU with formal notification of its intention to leave, and the obvious assumption is that it will in fact leave, but right now the UK is still in the EU and it’s probably not impossible for it to stay in if its politicians thought they would improve their chances of reelection by making that happen.
I agree that UKIP seems to have had a lot of influence despite being a small party. I do wonder whether a group with similar goals that wasn’t an actual political party could have had comparable influence, but on the whole I think probably not.
They don’t have FPTP for a broad national leadership, though, and that’s the important thing.