No, I'm afraid you didn't. I asked why there is currrently just a two-party democracy in the US, how it originated and why it continues to exist. You didn't answer this question.

The US two party system thing started out almost immediately. Well, actually you could argue it started before the constitution itself with the Federalists(wanted the constitution and federal government) and the anti-Federalists. Obviously the Federalists came out on top. But with a decade the Republican party showed up and dethroned them (not preciesely the Republican party we know today).

There have been times when a single party would dominate and times when multiple were fighting.

But generally we fall back to a two party system. In part because of how we do presidential election. And possibly also in part because the melting pot factor of America. Both in the blending of people. But also in that our two political parties are willing to shift to absorb growing concerns.

It came about and still exists because of strength. The parties are groups with like-minded ideas (platforms). As Sunnyside posted, it began before the US. Groups of people with similar ides would come together, make compromises, and present a unified front in order to defeat the opposite group (who does the same thing).

The time directly before the Civil War is a good example of this. When the Whigs became fragmented between the nationalist North and the secessionist South, the Democrat party made concessions with the southern Whigs and absorbed them. At the same time, northern Whigs reformed their platform and became the Republican party.

When the Confederacy formed, it had no political parties. Their congressmen had no allies and had to actively persuade each and every person for their vote. The president couldn't rely on his party to help push thru legislation and it make for a very ineffective government. At the same time, Lincoln could press his fellow Republicans to pass laws for taxes, the draft, national banking, ect.

Every now and then, a popular third party will come along and show true promise. There rarely last long tho, because they can't generate the support to overcome the strength of the two main parties. They end up compromising with one of the main parties and merging.

That's it in a nutshell.

__________________
For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security.
Thomas Jefferson

Yes, you are telling me how things went, but not why they went as they did. Why the system start with just two parties?

Yes, that is what happened, but why did it happen? Why was it natural to form just two parties when obviously there are always many more than two points of opinion?
Why can they not overcome the "strength" of the two main parties? What is there to hinder this?

What majority rule are we referring to. The US isn't the only country thats handicapped in getting smaller parties involved. In Canada its almost impossible for small parties to do well too. The Green party is polling at 12% but its doubtful they will ever win a seat.

In parliamentary systems the winning party could only get 35-40% of the popular vote, but this usually translates into a majority of the seats.

Then you have seperatist parties come along like the Bloc Quebecois, who get 9% of the vote who manage to convert this into 20% of the seats in the House, because they concentrate the electorate.

Proporational represenation definately has its advantages, if you don't want your system to be skewed like crazy.

I think Germany and New Zealand have a mixed member plurality, which means they have a certain pecentage of the House seats allocated for proporational representation, to help balance things out.

__________________
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. " — John Stuart Mill

I was referring to the US, it seems Canada is likewise handicapped democratically.

In Denmark any party achieving just 2% of the national vote will receive at least 4 seats in the 179 seat parliamentary.
Which I think is the very idea of a democracy. Have all opinions represented.
Unsure of their system.

Mixed member plurality would be an easy option for the US. Add about 200 or 300 seats to the House, and give out another ballot to people where they write down a party preference. Each party submits a list and the extra seats are allocated to the list members each parties have chosen.

If the Greens get 10% of the vote, they get some seats and appoint their list members to those seats. There is your way to get other parties involved. They could easily be the swing parties, and they could easily infuse some interesting new ideas into politics.

__________________
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. " — John Stuart Mill

Do I have to whip out the old threads?

__________________
My enduring personal, original quote: Many mistake what should rightly be called "passivism" for pacifism. Pacifism and passivism are COMPLETELY different.
----------------------
Ronald Reagan was not the only one to suffer from Alzheimer's Disease. America did, too.

I, of course, feel that a parliamentary type of democracy best represents the people. But the US doesn't need to change that far in its type of democracy. It just needs to make it easier for third, fourth, fifth, etc parties to become elligigable for election than it currently does.

What I would like to know is why it is so hard for this to happen. Why are the two current parties so entrenched and why is it likely that they continue to be so entrenched?