2007-06-16 13:32:49 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Because political parties in the US were set up to get presidential candidates elected. And a presidential candidate can only get elected if he or she wins a majority, not a plurality, of the electoral college. If you have more than two major contenders for president, you pose the risk of dividing the electoral college to the point where no single candidate could win a majority, which would result in every election being a stalemate and thrown into the House.
The reason why? The Founding Fathers were vehemently opposed to the idea of political factions, or parties. They saw how factions led to divisiveness and corruption in the British of House of Commons. So, I just don't think they planned a system around political parties fighting it out for power. In fact, they wanted precisely the opposite. They envisioned a system in which only candidates who had the United States' best interest at heart would stand for office. Only the candidate who was overwhelmingly supported would obtain a majority and a mandate. Also, they had no problem with the idea of the House having to resolve the election.
2007-06-16 13:44:35 · answer #1 · answered by TheOrange Evil 7 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Because there are a dozen or more other parties including some who actually elect people to Congress, but most of us feel like we can vote between these two and keep things a bit more under control and when we look at places that have 3 or 4 or 5 strong parties, their governments look a lot messier than ours - usually under a headline: "Being unable to get a majority ..."
2007-06-16 20:39:47 · answer #2 · answered by Mike1942f 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Certain federal and local laws. Also the requirements for the electoral colleges.
The way I see it...is that most local elections mirror the public and even house representives usually mirror the public. But once you get up to the senate and the president...things get fuzzy.
I'm not sure what the best way would be. Although it's definitely something to think about.
2007-06-16 20:51:33 · answer #3 · answered by Rick 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If we had more, then the vote would be split. See the US presidential elections of 1992, 1996, and 2000 for examples.
2007-06-17 00:13:34 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It gives us a balance. But no-one is holding a gun to you to vote for either. If there is another you want to see succeed, get active. Show us their merit. No time like the present; A lot of Americans are looking for something right now!
2007-06-16 20:51:37 · answer #5 · answered by thewindywest 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Feel free to throw your hat in the ring.
Enough 3rd party votes guarantee a Hillary win. Hope that's what you're after, because it's what you're asking for.
2007-06-16 20:36:19 · answer #6 · answered by Shrink 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
because you americans are foolish you foolish americans voted to a liar in the last presidential election so you foolish cant make another party and look what a foolish question you asked>>>>>>>>!
2007-06-16 20:54:04 · answer #7 · answered by mysheep76 1 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Becuase our government is completely flawed the only hope of fixing it is to just scrap it all and start over from scratch.
2007-06-16 20:38:52 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
Don't rub it in....
2007-06-16 20:40:29 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋