It is actively discouraged in much of the country, and some consider it grounds for revoking citizenship.

Yeah, I remember you mentioning that, but I was thinking in terms of the varying degree to which the royal prerogative is restricted, and how much its remaining extent is real vs. nominal. From what I recall reading, Gladstone was once unable to resume the office of PM simply because Queen Victoria detested him, so even as late as the Nineteenth Century Britains PM very much required the monarchs approval. As I understand things, the outgoing Norwegian PM recommends a replacement for the king to appoint, but whether rejecting that replacement would mean a constitutional crisis orsimply nominating another I can only guess. It is kind of bizarre to think of the king as the only citizen with NO franchise.


Well, extreme positions are typically unwise, especially in politics. Your point on stability and multi-party viability is well taken (Isaac also referenced that in defence of Americas system, as you probably noticed.)

America does have a history of pivotal exceptions to the rule that regional single member districts deter multi-party states though. In the years just prior to the Civil War, regional differences over slaverys expansion fatally split the Democratic Party that had enjoyed single party national rule a generation earlier, and that dynamic resurfaced a century later when Strom Thurmond and, later, George Wallace carried several states as Dixiecrats. Progressive Republicans under TR and then Robert La Follette (both of whom wore the "Happy Warrior" moniker in succession) similarly undermined that party in the early Twentieth Century, and the combined appeals of both threatened Trumans 1948 election as much as the Republican nominee Thomas Dewey did. And, of course, without the Greens Gore would have easily won NH as well as FL, making either state an acceptable loss by itself (which would have been historic in that a president would have been elected despite losing 2/3 in FL, PA and OH.) Establishing strong regional bases from which to build national support—and recruit experienced candidates—is still the only viable option for American third parties. Failure to do that in the West, South and Midwest is probably what doomed the Reform Party whose spoiler effect was indispensable to Clintons election.


I see; that is definitely a big feature I was completely unaware of in the European right. I guess it makes sense; many Republicans have for decades sneered at the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party trumpeting its civil rights accomplishments despite slavish devotion to unions in many places saturated with open racism and sexism. The big difference is that an economically liberal right IS almost totally foreign to my experience. The closest America has ever come to that was Father Coughlins public populism and clandestine support for Hitler. His contemporary, Huey Long, is probably most associated with "American fascism," but, being elected governor and then senator in the Deep South despite railing against poll taxes and other racial inequality, he mainly illustrates the American rights confusion over the differences between communism and socialism vs. fascism.

I tend to, but should not, take for granted that supporting social programs that benefit urban and labor constituents precludes racist agendas. With the notable exception of Jews, multiculturalism strikes me as a more novel issue for Europe than in America, and the welfare state far less so. Partisan reflections of that are natural.


Seven seems like a good number to me; five would probably be ideal, but any multipartisan environment favors the development of one or two niche parties catering to regional or other narrow interests. They are not terribly counterproductive if they align almost entirely with one of the broad major parties on all other issues. More importantly, they ensure issues vital but specific to key demographics receive recognition both directly, through their party, and indirectly, through the influence its kingmaking ability has on coalitions.