The 2017 Republican Controlled U.S. Congress

That only goes back to the 1970s. We've had significant third parties at least as far back as the 1920s and 30s - notably Labour, Progressive, CCF, Social Credit - when there was little or no regulation.

Parliamentary vs Presidential system

I know we don't have separate executive and legislative branches but what does that have to do with third parties?

Ballot access restrictions are part of the equation: http://www.sciencedirect.com/...rticle/pii/S0176268004000527

quote:

---

... The findings show that higher filing fees reduce both the number of major-party and minor-party candidates. However, filing fees are more effective in deterring minor-party candidates from contesting political office than major-party candidates. More stringent signature requirements reduce the number of major-party candidates.

---

For instance neither Jill Stein nor Gary Johnson were on the ballots in all states. The requirements vary from state to state.Two-party system - Wikipedia

quote:

---

The reasons why a country with free elections will evolve into a two-party system have been debated. A leading theory, referred to as Duverger's law, states that two parties are a natural result of a winner-take-all voting system.

---

quote:

---

Duverger's law:

​

In political science, Duverger's law holds that plurality-rule elections (such as first past the post) structured within single-member districts tend to favor a two-party system and that "the double ballot majority system and proportional representation tend to favor multipartism".[1][2] The discovery of this tendency is attributed to Maurice Duverger, a French sociologist who observed the effect and recorded it in several papers published in the 1950s and 1960s. In the course of further research, other political scientists began calling the effect a "law" or principle.

​

A two-party system often develops in a plurality voting system. In this system, voters have a single vote, which they can cast for a single candidate in their district, in which only one legislative seat is available. In plurality voting (i.e. first past the post), in which the winner of the seat is determined purely by the candidate with the most votes, several characteristics can serve to discourage the development of third parties and reward the two major parties.

​

Duverger suggests two reasons this voting system favors a two-party system. One is the result of the "fusion" (or an alliance very much like fusion) of the weak parties, and the other is the "elimination" of weak parties by the voters, by which he means that voters gradually desert the weak parties on the grounds that they have no chance of winning.[6][7]

​

A prominent restrictive feature unique to this system is purely statistical. Because the system gives only the winner in each district a seat, a party which consistently comes third (or even second) in every district will not gain any seats in the legislature, even if it receives a large minority of the vote. This puts geographically thinly spread parties at a significant disadvantage. ...

---

In the US presidential elections the winner must have >50% of the electoral votes, so third parties can disrupt this from happening (throwing the election into the House to decide who they want to be president, and it doesn't have to be a candidate -- this is what should have happened between Bush jr and Gore).The electoral votes are won by "first past the post" (most votes whether majority or not), but all the electoral votes are then allotted by "winner take all" in every state but two, and this tends to put 3rd parties at an extreme disadvantage. This filters to down ballot candidates when people vote for all the party candidates with a single pick on the ballot.For example Perot (running as independent) predominantly took votes from Bush senior in many states, so Clinton won those states by "first past the post" and took all their electoral votes by "winner take all" and that gave him the election.So it is a two-step process, get more votes than other candidates to get all the state electoral votes to win the presidency.Enjoy

The Electoral College is a factor in Presidential elections but what about the Senate and House? What prevents third parties there?

There are some and they have even elected some Representatives but of course the have little or no power in Congress. There were even third parties at the Presidential level but again, they simply have not attracted enough support. There are two Independents in the Senate.The only Third Party that has organizations in all 50 sates is the Libertarian Party. The Green Party has organizations in 44 states while the Constitution Party has organizations in just over 20 states.

We do see more in state houses, there has even an independent Governor fairly recently.Many rep and sen votes are because of entire ticket votes, and the two parties fighting for president become strong parties in the states. The party in power as governor rules how elections are run, how the ballots are organized and what you have to do to get on the ballot.Then you have issues like gerrymandering that affect how the opposition party, to say nothing of 3rd parties, can get elected.The system is rigged by the party in power, which means you need a strong single contender to beat it.

There is usually an Independent party candidate or two among the Congress folk. But those folk pretty much have to caucus with one or the other of the major parties in order to get anything done. Sanders is an Independent party Senator.Generally speaking a few congress folk among a bunch of other folk are pretty ineffective unless they are in a position to determine outcomes with their votes. That makes it hard to get elected. Usually those folks are former Democrats or Republicans.

That explains a lot. Our system is more top-down. There are differences from province to province but they don't go much beyond opening and closing times for polling stations.

Congress blocks rule barring mentally impaired from guns:

quote:

---

The Republican-led Senate voted Wednesday to block an Obama-era regulation that would prevent an estimated 75,000 people with mental disorders from being able to purchase a firearm. The measure now goes to President Donald Trump, who is expected to sign it.

---

These are truly bizarre times.--Percy

quote:

---

The chairman of the powerful panel the main investigative committee in the House sent a letter to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention demanding to know why, in an attempt to raise awareness of the Zika virus, CDC appears poised to make a sole source award to the Jim Henson Company for $806,000 to feature Sid the Science Kid in an educational program about the virus.

---

Sid is really creeping me out. He asks questions like why he can't scratch his ear with his foot? His dog can!You worry about little stuff but Rep. Jason Chaffetz is looking out for the rest of us.

Congress is proposing even greater cuts to Medicaid as well as adding a work requirement and changing to a block grant program to allow States to decide who to cover and what to cover.
sourceAnd they are not even offering to buy dinner after the fuck job.

As a matter of fact they are taking the dinner away.

This Congress seems to be Hooded Robin' instead of Robin Hood; its policy seems to be rob the poor and give to the rich. Take health care from the masses and give tax breaks to the rich.

So the Pubs are going to vote on Trump care. The hold outs will most likely cave.Wouldn't it be hilarious if someone slipped in a exact copy of Obama care as the new bill and it passes sight unseen?Because believe me no one knows wtf is in it at this point.