The Rise of the Republicans and the lesson of the US Third Party system:

[underlankers]

The United States, for all that we think of the two-party system as a continuous, stable pattern, has had a track record at least in its earlier years of seeing entire party systems collapse without trace.

Comments

[foolsguinea]

Your analysis is simplistic

[underlankers]

It does mean it was always there. The Know-Nothings were co-opted into the very first generation of the Party, and that strain was never eradicated from the overall body politic. That the other side does it too means that the alternative was not also nativist is itself a simplistic viewpoint. In reality it's perfectly feasible to have two parties advocating viewpoints that amount to discrimination and the people that end up choosing the one know this, but decide that better the lesser evil than the greater

[gunslnger]

This is what you're looking for:
http://xkcd.com/1127/large/

[underlankers]

No, actually, it's not as it's an anachronistic backdating of modern concepts onto the past. And using the US Civil War as Left v. Right is just one of the problems, not least because preserving the Union and preserving the monopoly on power of the 3% of the South's population that was in the Planter Class are both Right-Wing motivations, and both are conservative causes: one opposes a revolutionary change, and the other is the motivation of continuing the existing status quo in favor of existing trends

[peristaltor]

Nice analysis.

I do like one aspect of the pre-party system, the fact that everyone ran for president, but first and second place in the Electoral got President and Vice-President respectively. I like that system because it allowed for multiple candidates. Research has shown that in a more-than-two runner campaign, going negative doesn't work. Candidates that go negative have to go negative on more than one opponent, meaning everything they say is negative. People usually don't vote for an all-negative candidate.

Second, there are few people who can run for pres, let alone VP. Letting them all run and picking the top two gets more able candidates in the race.

Also, our current party system consolidates too much power in the higher executive branch. When the President and Vice President can break the Senate tie (with the VP/President of the Senate voting the admin position) and sign the legislation, too much power leaves the legislative branch. The president should have his most able opponent as VP, not a chosen lacky.

[underlankers]

The problem with that is that the first candidates elected on that basis broke it by preceding to stab each other in the back instead of actually, y'know, doing their jobs. What I like about the old system is that the candidates at one point stayed home and relied on their actual enthusiastic supporters to actually campaign for them. It has its merits, especially since adopting it in the information age is both not only plausible but actually would cut down on campaigning costs.

[sophia_sadek]

The Republicans have their ultimate origins in the party of Alexander Hamilton who established a "Christian" campaign machine to compete with "heathen" Tammany Hall.

[underlankers]

Translate that into the same English everyone else speaks.

[sophia_sadek]

In UL speak it might be something like: "That mealy mouthed immigrant from Nevis Island..."

[underlankers]

There's a language for the University of Louisiana system? I never knew that.

[il_mio_gufo]

i say within the next four years we begin to start a web-based movement to get everyone to take a CHALLENGE. the 'challenge' will require one to pledge to vote for a candidate (in the next election round of course, not the current) of another party other than Rep or Dem. It can be the I VOTE NON-DEM/NON-REP CHALLENGE er something....want to help? (:

[underlankers]

That's been tried repeatedly. I'll believe it works when I see it.