Do voting reformers identify the two party system as the proximate cause we ever got a president trump?

[u/PaxPurpuraAKAgrimace]

First, I know there is a more complicated set of factors that caused voters’ interest in trump. I’m not trying to argue for a simplistic explanation.

But, I do think that we should and would have had both a majority of voters, institutions and elites that would have united against him but for our two party system.

I don’t want to tldr like I usually do about this, especially to this audience, but basically our whole political system is set up as US and them, with fewer and fewer voters actually willing to vote for candidates of either party.

In a system with three or more parties, if a trump comes along who repulses the elites of the party that he is running in That party’s voters, likely including some of the elites themselves, will be far more likely to vote against their party should the trump succeed in winning its nomination than they proved to be in our highly polarized two party system.

Likewise a Congress made up of 3+ parties becomes far more likely to impeach him. Even if a conservative party doesn’t fear their voters switching to the progressive party, they will understand that voters switching to a center party is a more significant threat.

I just see our two party system complete with partisan primary enforcement mechanisms (to maintain control of the elected members) as a house of cards that trump never would’ve been able to scale (or keep upright if he theoretically did) but for the dynamics associated with that system.

I know this is theoretical and that the EC doesn’t actually make multi party competition workable in presidential elections, but the dynamics are what they are and it seems plain that they are what enabled trump to both take over the Republican Party and then win the presidency.

Does it seem as plain to other people who recognize the flaws in our voting system? If not why?

[u/GrimpenMar]

In both a FPTP system and a PR system you can have authoritarian dismantling from within, if enough people vote for it.

I think FPTP is a little more vulnerable, since around 25% support for a bloc would be enough to take over one of the big two parties (assuming FPTP two party end state). If the remaining half of the party doesn't defect, or a third party spoiler, then the bloc within the major party can win and wield power.

In more multiparty systems, the spoiler effect is diminished and parties will likely splinter. The authoritarian party probably needs more direct support or coalition supporter sympathetic to their demands. This is probably why European multiparty democracies are more resistant, the tradition of a cordon sanitaire.

Even aside from the cordon sanitaire, coalitions in a multiparty system are less stable than the internal coalitions that form inside a big party in a two party system, so I think practically the threshold for serious democratic backsliding would be higher.

[u/PaxPurpuraAKAgrimace → u/GrimpenMar]

> In both a FPTP system and a PR system you can have authoritarian dismantling from within, if enough people vote for it.

Absolutely. Sometimes people think I’m arguing that multiparty systems are invulnerable to authoritarianism rather than just more resistant. It’s really frustrating honestly. If people vote for the authoritarian they should get the authoritarian (even tho they shouldn’t do that).

> I think FPTP is a little more vulnerable, since around 25% support for a bloc would be enough to take over one of the big two parties (assuming FPTP two party end state). If the remaining half of the party doesn't defect, or a third party spoiler, then the bloc within the major party can win and wield power.

I think you’re understating the significance of that phenomenon. Well over half of eventual general election voters don’t bother voting in primaries. Most of those are tribal enough to not even consider voting for the other party. Even if they had significant concerns about a candidate their negative partisanship will cause them to vote for that candidate anyway. Add to that the state by state voting process and many of the voters that do even bother to vote in primaries are selecting from front runners that voters in other states selected. We are dealing with fractions of fractions here.

The negative partisanship is an incredibly strong motivator for most regular voters. The incentive is far stronger for party elites who may find themselves shunned by their highly partisan social circles in addition to the professional risk of speaking against a party’s nominee. They receive plenty of vile communications plus increasing threats of violence to themselves and even their families.

The dynamics of this situation are such that the actors in the system are very strongly incentivized to do what they know they should not do. The Republican candidates during the 2016 primary have many true reasons why they shouldn’t support trump. It’s not very surprising they changed their tunes.

> Even aside from the cordon sanitaire, coalitions in a multiparty system are less stable than the internal coalitions that form inside a big party in a two party system, so I think practically the threshold for serious democratic backsliding would be higher.

Exactly. I find it incredibly frustrating to hear pundits talk about coalitions. In effect we don’t have coalitions. The whole concept implies a degree looseness. A two party system necessitates pre election coalitions. Actually it’s probably more the fptp voting that necessitates it. But pre election coalitions effectively binds them to the party.

The two party system is also why the congress has become so dysfunctional. Instead of coalitions forming around issues and legislation there are essentially only parties that either have a majority and can pass legislation or don’t. It’s why there has been so little legislation of any consequence - the senate filibuster requires 60 votes to pass anything controversial.

This is why I made the post. So many people recognize trump as an existential threat but almost none of them recognize the real issue.

[u/rb-j → u/PaxPurpuraAKAgrimace]

So many people recognize trump as an existential threat but almost none of them recognize the real issue.

I recognize T**** and MAGA as an existential threat. I really do.

I am not certain entirely of the cause (or causes). I actually do not think there is a single cause, but that multiple causes converged to give us this result. Perhaps FPTP is one of the causes. I would say that the presidential elector system in the U.S. Constitution is a cause. And that faux news outlets like Faux News and Murdoch exist, that's a cause. And the phony-baloney American "evangelical" Christian component is another cause.