So the elections are over .... now what?

[Pozzible]

18 hours ago, tobetrained said:

First, we aren't a two-party system by requirement but there no real motive for more parties. Our US House is the equivalent body to most parliaments...it's just the speaker isn't President. That dulls the need for more parties to develop.

The reason more parties are better is that they each bring their focus and maybe expertise on different issues. With two party system you’re on one team or the other and are pressured to stand with them. Factions can align with different parties on different issues. To me, that’s a big strength. 

[hntnhole]

6 hours ago, Pozzible said:

Factions can align with different parties on different issues.

Excellent point.  Thanks.  

[tobetrained]

@Pozzible can you elaborate. When I wrote that, in my mind, I was trying to state parties in a parliamentary systems are the factions.

[Pozzible]

On 11/10/2025 at 12:30 PM, tobetrained said:

First, we aren't a two-party system by requirement but there no real motive for more parties. Our US House is the equivalent body to most parliaments...it's just the speaker isn't President. That dulls the need for more parties to develop. And there are variations on the theme which abound across democracies, both in governing and elections.

I think there’s a strong motive for more parties. With one party pretty much controlling how all of its members vote, it shuts down any ideas the party isn’t in favor of. For example, nothing can be accomplished on improving environmental policies. If you had a small faction of Greens, the majority wouldn’t be able to automatically prevent bringing legislation to the floor. Small factions could prevent Republicans from giving budget busting tax breaks for the rich. As it is, Republican members are forced to toe the party line. 

[tobetrained]

@Pozzible as privately discussed, The discrepancy here is you were referencing coalitions yesterday. So on same page now.

Re: motives... but if there were strong motives, we would have that today. We don't. And nothing legal or technical prevents it. Nothing. And many districts and Senate elections have other parties run, as well as independents.

But our system, in trying to avoid the populism that type of government creates, was setup for checks and balances. So, the Prime Minister is not head of state... we have a President. Our effective PM is #3, the Speaker of the House. And the House and President (as well as Senate) have different terms to limit temporary political moments from breaking balance.

Also, contrary to UK parliamentary procedure, our system doesn't allow a minority government -- a Speaker needs 50%+ of member vote for the role. So, if we did break into many factions -- again, fully possible today -- then informal coalition-building could happen. I have no idea what happens if no one passes that threshold. I don't think the elected Speaker must be a sitting member of the House either, but not 100% certain on that.

And we do have factions, kinda. There's only one cross-party caucus I know of today, Problem Solvers. Otherwise many others exist within parties, even though some claim to be unaligned.

[Pozzible]

6 minutes ago, tobetrained said:

Re: motives... but if there were strong motives, we would have that today. We don't. And nothing legal or technical prevents it. Nothing. And many districts and Senate elections have other parties run, as well as independents.

Strong motives are there. But overcoming the ingrained, established two party system isn’t easy. We do have a couple of independents in Sanders and King, but I can’t imagine us getting much farther than that. Too much money and tradition to overcome. 

And yes, with our presidential system, shift in factional coalition wouldn’t bring down the entire government. But I’d be willing to bet that the Republican house would have been dissolved during their 8 week tantrum and absence from DC. 

i don’t anticipate any real change in our system, but parliamentary systems look more effective to me. 

[hntnhole]

tobetrained & Pozzible: 

Just so you're both aware, this is a fascinating discussion, and I'm sure there are plenty more BZ'ers reading, learning, and appreciating the exchange just as much as I am.  Thanks.  

[tobetrained]

On 11/12/2025 at 3:36 PM, Pozzible said:

Strong motives are there. But overcoming the ingrained, established two party system isn’t easy. We do have a couple of independents in Sanders and King, but I can’t imagine us getting much farther than that. Too much money and tradition to overcome. 

And yes, with our presidential system, shift in factional coalition wouldn’t bring down the entire government. But I’d be willing to bet that the Republican house would have been dissolved during their 8 week tantrum and absence from DC. 

@Pozzible But: re money and tradition, that's what I mean by motivation. There's MORE motivation to join the two main parties...as Sanders and Trump stated in 2016. And that was intentional by the founders -- by creating a President and not allowing the Prime Minister to be head of state, re populism and checks-and-balances. If the PM were head of state, there would be motivation for splintering.

You wrote:  "But I’d be willing to bet that the Republican house would have been dissolved during their 8 week tantrum and absence from DC"

Why? There wouldn't have been a 'no confidence' vote brought by Reps in the House... they wouldn't have voted themselves out. And Dems don't have a majority.

If a faction of a "Rep-like coalition" broke away, it depends. Canada and the UK, for example, allow minority rule. In that case, Reps would have to call snap elections on themselves...which I don't think would have happened. And what would likely happen first would have been a change in leadership (which can happen here too, and did with McCarthy). But even in a change of leader scenario, not even 10% of the remaining "Rep-like coalition" group would have called on Johnson to step down from within. So, I don't see any possible change. And, even if he could have done so in a what-if scenario, why would Trump have called for it?

Let's stick with the UK to articulate: Careful What You Wish For

Labour has tanked since their 2024 win. Reform (MAGA-equivalent) has gained so much to not only be the leading party but, in seat estimates, are breaking outright majority rule in simulations of "if the election were held today" tests.

Turn-over of government -- if that's your thing -- works both ways. Over time, Republicans would gain by it just as much as Democrats. But, like I said above, most parliamentary governments are 5 or more year terms. The average of Germany, France, and the UK is 3.5 years (thanks AI, so I didn't have to calc!!) including snap elections over last 25 years. Our House election is 2 years with Presidential, obviously, 4 years. So things are just as fast or faster, broadly.

You said, "If you had a small faction of Greens, the majority wouldn’t be able to automatically prevent bringing legislation to the floor."

I've never understood this argument. In my view, if the far-left can't get the moderate/center-left support on something, why would anyone on the R-side of the isle support? And the same in reverse.

This argument is usually pushed by populists politicians of both left and right extremes -- it's like the 'tell'. By "bringing to the floor" and, assuming you force a vote, it's used to force others on YOUR side to vote for it or face a backlash -- and possible primary challenge. And it breaks down trust.

On top of that, Pelosi brought many bills to the floor and passed them -- which just died in the Senate even with Dems leading that body as they weren't bi-partisan with ability to break 60-vote threshold/filibuster. I asked AI this Q as I remembered the Dem-on-Dem fights: In 2014, Pelosi fully passed 340 bills while the Dem-led Senate passed only 38 of them due to above reason... and Obama was in WH! I claim no correctness to the counts -- just remember the fights.