US party politics

I need information about US party system and politics:


1. Do they have two-party or multiparty (more than two) system?

2. Did they always had system like they have today? (since 1775)

3. Is it possible for American citizen to candidate for president if he is not in Republican or Democratic party?

4. Do they allow independent politicians to run for congress?

5. American congress is composed of one or two chambers(upper/lower house)? If yes, what is their name?

6. If Congress is composed of two chambers, then who gets in what chamber and what are their purpose?

7. Where is the building where Government (cabinet of ministers, not congress/parliament) work?



I am really interested in US party system because i see only two parties dominating American politics, while in the rest of the world countries have thousand registered parties and usually 4 of them are the largest, most popular and dominate the political scene. All 4 are not necessary in the parliament or created government mandate, usually 2 make ruling coalition and 2 ally in opposition.


Big 4 parties = usually million or more members (usually liberal, democratic, socialist, nationalist)
Average 10-20 parties = about 500,000 members (usually mixed names, liberal-democrat, social-democrat, nationalist-conservative)
Small 100-1000 parties = ten to hundred members (usually sceptic/pro or extreme, fascist, communist, lgbt, feminist, pirate, eurosceptic, pro-eurasian)

1. Multiparty, there's just two major ones with many smaller ones

2. No, it used to be less focused on parties and a candidate didn't pick their VP, whichever candidate got the second most amount of votes would be VP

3. Yes, but it would be extremely difficult

4. Yes, but very few actually make elected office, however, sometimes independents can rise high, example: Bernie Sanders

5. Two houses, the Senate (each state gets two senators) and the House of Representatives (amount of reps is based on state population example: California has 53 reps, and is the most populated state, while Wyoming, the least populated, has 1)

6. Senators in the Senate, and Representatives in House of Reps, they function similarly, but there are two houses because of a dispute during the founding of the government, larger states wanted representation based on population, and smaller states wanted equal representation, so the way it is set up now, both get their way, and can check and balance each other

7. Congress meets in the Capitol building in Washington D.C. and the Supreme Court meets in the Supreme Court Building

Hope that answers your questions

Books?... too hipster
Google?... nope
Wikipedia?... fuck no
...
AW forums?... hella yes!

Virus gave a great explanation above, I thought I would add one more thing about question 2. In addition to Vice Presidents not always running with the President, primaries for choosing the nominee for president for each party did not start until the early 1900s. A process for primaries is not set up in the Constitution and therefore is up for the party to decide how their nominee is chosen hence why the nomination process for Republicans and Democrats is slightly different (Democrats have super delegates and need more delegates to win as more delegates are available to win in each state when compared to the Republican nomination delegate count).

Skrevet av Viruslegion, 20.04.2016 at 14:33

7. Congress meets in the Capitol building in Washington D.C. and the Supreme Court meets in the Supreme Court Building

Hope that answers your questions

Yes, except this last one; i asked where Government meet, not Congress. I don't know where Cabinet of Ministers(secretaries) meet.

Skrevet av Goblin, 20.04.2016 at 14:49

Books?... too hipster

Reading Charles De Gaulle's memoirs, no time to read all.

Skrevet av Goblin, 20.04.2016 at 14:49

Google?... nope
Wikipedia?... fuck no
...
AW forums?... hella yes!

Boring, it is more interesting to get first hand information and directly, avoiding endless definitions, formulas and opinions on google and wikipedia. Atwar is perfect spot since half of the game is political debating.

Skrevet av Skanderbeg, 20.04.2016 at 15:22

Skrevet av Viruslegion, 20.04.2016 at 14:33

7. Congress meets in the Capitol building in Washington D.C. and the Supreme Court meets in the Supreme Court Building
Hope that answers your questions

Yes, except this last one; i asked where Government meet, not Congress. I don't know where Cabinet of Ministers(secretaries) meet.

My mistake, there is so set place where the Cabinet meets, it can be anywhere the president wants, but usually is in the Oval Office of the White House

1. While AMerica is technically a multi-party system (any party is free to run a candidate), it is dominated by the Republicans and Democrats for over a century. The majority of people are registered with one of those two parties and both parties represent the diverse views of Americans so I do not see what a third party would add unless they see themselves as moderate/centrist.

2. After the Revolution, the Articles of Confederation were passed. There were many bad things wrong with it (for instance, the national government had no way of raising money for say a war). Disputes broke out between states (some even resulted in a war). During the Constitutional Convention (where the constitution was wrote for a new government) two factions rose up: The Federalist (supporters of a strong national government and in support of the Constitution) and the ANti-federalist (against a strong central government). There were a multitude of compromises and eventually the COnstitution was passed and ratified.

Washington was not apart of any party (he did not like the idea and warned about political parties before he retired). John Adams came from the Federalist and since they were more organized, he became the second president. The ANti-federalist would eventually reorganize themselves into the Democratic-Republicans. This would start the two party system. During the French Revolution, the Federalist favored the Brits and wanted to model the government and economy off of them. The Democratic-Republicans prefered the French. WHen the War of 1812 broke out between the US and Britain, the Federalist were placed in a bad spot. SOme even advocated that the Northeastern US secede (as this was the heart of the federalist). After the war, the Federalist were sidelined never to win the presidency again.

There was a period of "one party" rule where only the Democratic-Republicans won. But John Quincy Adams (grandson of former President and Federalist John Adams) became President under circumstances that ANdrew Jackson hated. Basically, four candidates ran and no one got the majority of electoral votes. So it had to go to House of Representatives to decide who would be President. The top three candidates would be voted on for who would be President. These three were John Quincy Adams (former Secretary of State), Andrew Jackson (who won the plurality of votes) and some guy name Crawford who had fallen ill before but because there was no mass media, people still voted for him. Henry Clay- current SPeaker of the House and considered the "Great Compromiser"- was fourth but was not eligible. He threw his support behind Adams pissing off Jackson who had won the most votes. Clay would become Secretary of State which further infuriated Jackson. This was because everyone who had been made secretary of state later became President so Jackson saw tis as grooming Clay for President. Adams supporters would eventually form the National Republican Party while Jackson's supporters would become the Democrats (neither of these parties have the same ideals as today's parties). Jackson would beat Adams in the following election. An Anti-Jackson coalition arose and the National Republicans dissolved. Eventually this coalition would form the Whigs who would battle it out with the Democrats winning the Presidency a few times.

The Whigs would fracture as slavery became an issue. FOllowing the Mexican-American war, most Northern WHigs left the party and joined the Republicans while those in the South joined the Know-Nothing or Democrats.

By the time the Civil War ended, there was essentially just the Democrats and Republicans. During the Civil Rights era, Republicans and Democrats flipped back and forth on the issue. Those In the South were more against it. Because of their views, they became known as the "Dixiecrats" as they voted Democrat. Eventually Reagan brought forth a new coalition of conservative, white, evangelicals, and others into today's modern Republican Party. Today's Democrats trace their roots to FDR's presidency who brought many minorities into the party.



3. Yes but most Americans will vote for a Democrat of a Republican as those parties have the most members, funding, exposure and in my opinion, most relevant and realistic policies. Third parties (like the Greens or Libertarians) are not well known but do play a part. While they do not win really any state or national post, they can win a lot in local elections if they put on a good campaign. Most third parties are single issue parties meaning hey focus on one issue. This brings attention tot he problem and also allows the two major parties to be more accountable. The most notable modern third party presidential candidate is Rose Perot, a billionaire who was able to fund his campaign winning about 20% of the vote in the '92 election.

4. Yes, in fact Democratic Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders is an independent Senator form Vermont.

5. Two Chambers. The House of Representatives is considered the lower house. It has more members and it is based on "districts" drawn up in each state where people vote for a candidate to represent their district. This was based on the idea of making sure the larger states are represented. The Senate is the upper chamber and there exist only 100 Senators, 2 from each of the 50 states. This was designed to make sure the larger states do not dominate the smaller states. For a bill to be passed into law, both houses must get 2/3 approval. The bill is then sent to the President who will sign it into law or veto it at which point the Senate can override it if they get 2/3 of the vote. Each house has different jobs but the core idea for both of them is to pass legislation.

6. I believe I explained this up above. Let me know if you need more detail.

7. The cabinet is part of the executive branch. They do not work at any one building but rather are apart of different departments (ie. ministries) such as Defense, Justice, etc.

The american democracy is just a corporate, corruption clusterfuck, believe me

Skrevet av Tirpitz406, 20.04.2016 at 17:13

The american democracy is just a corporate, corruption clusterfuck, believe me

Perfect description for the European Union

Skrevet av Acquiesce, 20.04.2016 at 17:18

look, i never said it was perfect, it really could use some changes, but the critics want to destroy everything of the eu, a lot of income for us and a big factor of why europe was so peaceful the last 70 years. you dont want texas to go to war with florida, do you?

Skrevet av Tirpitz406, 20.04.2016 at 17:22

a big factor of why europe was so peaceful the last 70 years

Yeah I always hear that misinformation. EU has made Europe peaceful.
Ever considered that maybe the EU exists because Europe is already peaceful? Your causation is backwards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

Skrevet av Acquiesce, 20.04.2016 at 17:26

idk man, before 1949 (when the eu was founded) ww1, ww2, german brother war, balkan wars for independence (from the ottomanes) the german french war etc. etc took place mostly in europe, between european nations. but after 1949, there were zero wars inside the eu, while even in europe wars were still happening, like the yugoslav war. look, obviously there is still the chance that the eu didnt do anything, but the correlation strongly suggests that it at least had some effect on for example germany not starting another world war.

Skrevet av Tirpitz406, 20.04.2016 at 17:36

Skrevet av Acquiesce, 20.04.2016 at 17:26

idk man, brefore 1949 (when the eu was founded) ww1, ww2, german brother war, balkan wars for independence (from the ottomanes) the german french war etc. etc took place mostly in europe, between european nations. but after 1949, there were zero wars inside the eu, while even in europe wars were still happening, like the yugoslav war. look, obviously there is still the chance that the eu didnt do anything, but the correlation strongly suggests that it at least had some effect on for example germany not starting another world war.

you dont know anything about history.you've just showed that now

Skrevet av Oleg, 20.04.2016 at 17:38

you dont know anything about history.you've just showed that now

Thank you for your extremely helpful comment, you really convinced me, that your opinion is right and i think i might have to reconsider everything i ever thought about european history. i simply cannot thank you enough

Skrevet av Tirpitz406, 20.04.2016 at 17:36

idk man, brefore 1949 (when the eu was founded) ww1, ww2, german brother war, balkan wars for independence (from the ottomanes) the german french war etc. etc took place mostly in europe, between european nations. but after 1949, there were zero wars inside the eu, while even in europe wars were still happening, like the yugoslav war. look, obviously there is still the chance that the eu didnt do anything, but the correlation strongly suggests that it at least had some effect on for example germany not starting another world war.

It suggests no such thing. Obviously establishing a supranational organization like the EU when there are lots of European wars happening is unlikely to succeed. Now try establishing such an organization during a period of peace and prosperity, very likely to succeed. Without explaining exactly how the EU as an institution secures peace, making the claim that EU>Peace is nothing more than a post hoc fallacy. To my eye the EU leads to more conflict between states than would exist without it because national interests are distinct from EU or German interests.

Skrevet av Acquiesce, 20.04.2016 at 17:45

It suggests no such thing. Obviously establishing a supranational organization like the EU when there are lots of European wars happening is unlikely to succeed. Now try establishing such an organization during a period of peace and prosperity, very likely to succeed. Without explaining exactly how the EU as an institution secures peace, making the claim that EU>Peace is nothing more than a post hoc fallacy. To my eye the EU leads to more conflict between states than would exist without it because national interests are distinct from EU or German interests.

look, the eu was established especially in order to maintain peace. there were multilateral organizations in europe and outside before, like the different alliances between france and britain (who still fought in 1880) and the league of nations, but none of these could actually stop nations from going to war with eachother. as for your claim, that the eu was a result of a peaceful time, that simply never happened in europe since the roman empire. by joining the eu, nations have to agree to solving disagreements peacefully and in court rather than on battlefields. it started with the different members controlling eachothers coal and steel production to limit the possibilities for nations trying to prepare for a fourth reich.

ugh, look, can you please stop listening to khal? just because a nations votes depend on their inhabitants+some extra, doesnt mean that the nation with the most inhabitants is granted a dictator for 4 years. germany has 90 votes in the parliament, compared to our population, thats less than what greece has. a nations intrests usally, somehow interfere with another nations intrests, but the eu tries to get all these different intrests to somehow work together, than having to resolve these conflicts of intrest with continuation of politics with different methods, as we did for a few thousand years...

So your reasoning is that with previous multilateral organizations states agreed to solve conflicts without war but it failed. Now with the EU states agree to solve conflicts without war but it succeeds. This is not convincing to me sorry.

Btw, my being skeptical of the EU has nothing to do with Khal. It has everything to do with minimal voter turnout in EU elections, unelected positions within the EU bureaucracy, the complete failure of the EU to protect external borders, the growing loss of national sovereignty to the EU, the fact that Eurozone countries have no ability to conduct monetary policy, polling data that shows Europeans don't think EU officials care about their interests, and the list goes on...

Skrevet av Skanderbeg, 20.04.2016 at 15:22

Reading Charles De Gaulle's memoirs, no time to read all.

I've been reading Winston Churchill's memoirs!

Skrevet av Viruslegion, 20.04.2016 at 15:42

My mistake, there is so set place where the Cabinet meets, it can be anywhere the president wants, but usually is in the Oval Office of the White House

Interesting, i didn't knew that.

But also interesting that Russian Government (cabinet, not parliament) works in the White House. Just the difference is American White House is created as residential building for the president, Russian White House is built for the Government (Cabinet of Ministers) to meet and work.

Skrevet av Al Fappino, 20.04.2016 at 19:05

Skrevet av Skanderbeg, 20.04.2016 at 15:22

Reading Charles De Gaulle's memoirs, no time to read all.

I've been reading Winston Churchill's memoirs!

me too

Skrevet av Tirpitz406, 20.04.2016 at 17:42

Skrevet av Oleg, 20.04.2016 at 17:38

you dont know anything about history.you've just showed that now

Thank you for your extremely helpful comment, you really convinced me, that your opinion is right and i think i might have to reconsider everything i ever thought about european history. i simply cannot thank you enough

Agree.

Skrevet av Pheonixking929, 20.04.2016 at 15:43

Good read.

One more question, since you mentioned Dixies: Were they only popular in the South during Cold War? Did they had presence in local parliaments, state parliaments or federan one?

Skrevet av Skanderbeg, 22.04.2016 at 14:37

Skrevet av Pheonixking929, 20.04.2016 at 15:43

Good read.

One more question, since you mentioned Dixies: Were they only popular in the South during Cold War? Did they had presence in local parliaments, state parliaments or federan one?

They did get membership in Congress and their support came just from the South. They rose primarily after the Democrat party went from being against civil rights to for it (due to FDR's policies bringing in blacks). The South never liked this so they began to diverge from the main Democrats.