Why doesn't America have a 3rd party like Canada?

[SailorMars1994]

Just a question. I know we do have a different political system Parliamentary  vs Congressional and we have a Prime Minister vs a President , and those are just the simply ways on the tip of the ice berg of differences. However, I ask why it is America has just two parties, Democratic and Republican? In Canada we have two "main" parties (government and opposition) with only the Conservative and Liberal parties winning government federally and with a very strong third party called the New Democratic Party which has never won federally (but did become the official opposition in 2011), but has managed to win many elections at the Provincial level.

How come America only has two parties that win when both are neither adored but the public. I know many years ago there was a strong third party called the Progressive Party and for a short time the Reform Party of America, how come these parties didn't stick? Just winding thanks!

[DawnOday]

SailorMoon- It's all about the Benjamin's. Not enough financial support for a third party. We spend $100's of millions on elections. Most to pay off politicians. The other reason I think this way is. America hates change. 

[tgchar21]

It's at least in part due to the voting method (watch to learn more).

[KathyLauren]

It has to do with the "first past the post" electoral system.  It is the reason why we have only one party on the right now, instead of the Reform/Alliance and the Progressive Conservatives.  The right wing parties realized that their chances of winning elections increased if there was only one party on the right.  So the one party took over the other in spite of their ideological differences.  The "unite the right" movement resulted in 10 years of the Harper government.

With two parties on the left, the right wing has an advantage.  Mathematically, they are more likely to win elections.  Eventually, the left-wing parties will come to the same realization and unite.  And then we, too, will have a two- party system.

[amandam]

The Dems and Reps both have grown very strong and they both try to manipulate who we get to vote for. For instance, the Dems bushwhacked Bernie Sanders to install Hillary as the candidate. The Reps tried to give us another Bush, when that failed they tried Rubio, finally they went for Cruz half-heartedly. Trump was too strong among "independent" Republicans and still managed to get the nomination. The election was supposed to be Hillary vs. Bush. Factions of the left and right now constantly oppose and attack Trump to hamstring him whether he does something good or bad (whether you like him or not). Consider the opposition to Trump. Now apply that opposition across the country against multiple small party candidates. Is it any wonder we can't get a viable third party?

[Dena]

The progressive have been hiding in the democrat party for around 100 years now though as blue dog democrats get fewer and fewer, the democrat party becomes even more progressive. We actually have over half a dozen political parties however most are pretty small. The Libertarian is the largest of them and the platform is the liberties claimed by the democrats and the small government of the republicans, much like the original founding fathers. Most of the time, people like some of the platform of the democrats or the republicans and reject the minimal government of the Libertarians. In my case, I am more of a Libertarian however because I know they aren't going to win, I have to vote for the lessor of two evils with a major party. I am sure I am not alone in my voting habits as many decline to state a political party when registering to vote.

[Alanna1990]

look at it this way, In Mexico we have 9 political parties and to tell you the truth... it's just a big circus, and no matter who wins it's all the same because most of them spawned from the strongest political party, they make so called alliances and at the end we have 2, maybe 3 real choices at election time, the money wasted on them is incredible, one thing I think many americans have not understood yet is that no matter who wins it's still going to be the same, nothing really changes, people will complaint and the current president will always be the worst ever, so it doesn't matter who wins, I believe the progresses being made in human rights for example are just the natural progression of society and not the result of a political party winning.

you wonder about having a third party, you should keep two, as I told you before we have 9, and last time the president of my country won with only 12% of the possible votes, nonsense

[Dena]

you wonder about having a third party, you should keep two, as I told you before we have 9, and last time the president of my country won with only 12% of the possible votes, nonsense

That is part of the reason for two political parties. To win in the U.S. you need 50+% of the vote. If nobody can reach 50%, it goes to the electoral college and they horse trade until they can agree on somebody. The electoral college isn't required to select anybody who ran in the election and in the past, we have had presidents who never received a single vote. Remember in our election system, we vote for the elector and not the candidate. Normally the elector votes for the candidate the voters want but there is no requirement for this in the constitution.

[SailorMars1994]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_general_election,_2012

12% of the vote? I must be missing something here as it looks much higher then that. I could be wrong but this is what I found on the web.

I guess I see both points. Perhaps in US a third Party "could" have more drawbacks then gains due to the system they use. It would still be nice to see the Republicans and Democrats be held truley accountable from the side of the the fence however. Especially the Democratic establishment which is much more open to showing bias in a candidate then even the Republicans , case in point super delegates and endorsing candidates a year before they officially run. I digress

I know in Canada our national 3rd party historically, the New Democrats have been useful during minority governments however

[Roll]

Historically, the two party system was not intended nor desired by many out of fear for the very things that happen today. It was one of the key complaints of the lesser known Anti-Federalist Papers, and addressed in the Federalist Papers #10 by some readings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10

Bottom line for why its a thing: Money combined the electorate being lazy/ill informed. Though helped along by good old fashioned ineptitude on the part of the viable third parties. The best example of that being the Reform party's collapse in the 2000s after attempting to consolidate a ton of disparate smaller parties even after Perot's massive strides in the previous elections. Currently the Libertarians are dropping the ball pretty heavily, and there have been numerous openings during the lead up to the 2016 election and since for them to attempt to truly court disenfranchised voters who did not like either major party candidate. (The growing anarcho-capitalist influence doesn't help either, driving the Libertarian party in some areas quite a bit beyond the pale for most voters. They have backed themselves into a corner on no regulation for anything, when most potential Libertarian voters want simply less not no regulation outright.)

I personally favor proportional representation, just to begin undermining the two major parties at least even a little. Both have outstayed their welcome as far as I'm concerned.

[Dena]

I guess I see both points. Perhaps in US a third Party "could" have more drawbacks then gains due to the system they use. It would still be nice to see the Republicans and Democrats be held truley accountable from the side of the the fence however. Especially the Democratic establishment which is much more open to showing bias in a candidate then even the Republicans , case in point super delegates and endorsing candidates a year before they officially run. I digress

They are held accountable to some degree. If a party ignores a minority segment of the populations, they may find it difficult to reach the 50% numbers. The is the coalition building process in a parliamentary government taking place at the ballot box instead of behind closed doors. The founding fathers weren't agains a parliamentary government however they felt there were some flaws in the concept as well as issues that weren't a one to one fit for our country. To solve this issues, they change some of the features of our government hopefully to work better.

Now the one flaw with the above argument is after the vote have been counted, there is no requirement that the minority segment of the population will receive any representation. Both parties have made promises that they have no intention of keeping and that's why we have such a high regard for politicians.   

[Alanna1990]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_general_election,_2012

12% of the vote? I must be missing something here as it looks much higher then that. I could be wrong but this is what I found on the web.

I guess I see both points. Perhaps in US a third Party "could" have more drawbacks then gains due to the system they use. It would still be nice to see the Republicans and Democrats be held truley accountable from the side of the the fence however. Especially the Democratic establishment which is much more open to showing bias in a candidate then even the Republicans , case in point super delegates and endorsing candidates a year before they officially run. I digress

I know in Canada our national 3rd party historically, the New Democrats have been useful during minority governments however

those numbers count only votes, not all the registered voters, it has a number there, but let me tell you something the "IFE" (now "INE") which is basically the government office that counts votes has a history of making up numbers, they say 63% of registered voters actually voted, but numbers from other sources have counted that only around 40% of them actually did, it's really hard to know the exact numbers as the last election was very clearly hacked, in any case, it's insane that from all available voters you can be president with only 12 to 15% of votes, all thanks to how many political parties exist here.

[Lady Sarah]

When Americans look at politics, many see only liberals and conservatives. We see them attack each other, lie, slander, and commit libel. We tend to vote against the one we least want to see in office. To make sure that one does not attain the presidency, we tend to vote for the candidate from the other powerful party. Voting for a third party is considered a wasted vote, as they stand no chance of ever being elected. It's a circus and a joke.

[Dani]

Voting for a third party is considered a wasted vote, as they stand no chance of ever being elected.

Last time around in the US Presidential election, I found ALL candidates from the major and minor parties deficient. 

So fore the first time in my life, I cast a through away vote to express my disgust. I voted for Mickey Mouse.

I am embarrassed and saddened by our electoral system. 

[AnneK]

Last time around in the US Presidential election, I found ALL candidates from the major and minor parties deficient. 

Well, they ARE politicians.   

As mentioned, we have 3 main parties in Canada.  The 3rd party can often make the difference when they support one of the other 2.  In fact, several years ago, in Ontario, the 2nd and 3rd place parties ganged up to defeat the 1st place party.  One thing that makes this possible is many votes are "confidence votes", which means the current government stands or falls on the vote outcome.  The Prime Minister of the country or Premier of a province are generally the leader of the 1st place party, but on rare occasions, they get knocked out by the other 2 parties getting together to select someone else.