Over here, the ‘Tory’ party (helped by its coalition with the LibDems and led by ultra-wet Cameron) seems to stand where the British Labour Party was about 40 years ago. Up springs the UK Independence Party which seems to be where the Tories were 40 years ago. Politics is like a caterpillar track - disappearing off to the left and being renewed from the right. The Tea Party is the hope for the future.
The single member district system ~ which is universal here ~ leads to the development of a party that needs just 50% + 1 vote to win. That party consists of a variety of factions or 'coalition partners' who tend to share SOME values one of which is IT'S BETTER TO WIN THAN TO LOSE".
Over time ~ a decade maybe ~ there will be enough disgruntled 'coalition partners' that efforts will begin to go win on their own. This may result in a local, or possibly regional party, and it may win here and there. The larger coalition party will react, and the local parties will be moved aside by 'the big gucks' ~ which will lead to more 'disgruntled partners' ~ and a national party will arise which can win in local, state and national elections!
We called the first such large national party to grow up dedicated to winning the Democratic-Republican party, and the second was called The Whig party.
At no time did either party seat itself in Congress according to the layout recommended for the first revolutionary assembly in France ~ one reason was NO ROYALISTS. They'd been sent to New Brunswick. Secondly, Jefferson and other Founders had a lot of free land to give away to the people. Thirdly, the Whigs, once formed, grasped the handles of porkbarrel politics handily ~ they favored ROADS, CANALS, Public Buildings.
NOTE: my analysis glosses over the National Bank issue because I think the rise of the Whigs proved far more important to future events and political posturing than did the Bank.
Americans had their own revolutionary theories too so why adopt the nonsense popping up in France.
For a very long time though there were political theoreticians who pushed the normal curve from left to right with a large bulge in the center where you could find Moderates, or Middle of the Road people who were 'undecided' but could be persuaded in campaigns to move one way or the other and favor one large party, or another large party, and their candidates!
Over time coalitions shifted and new issues arose. In their attempt to avoid dealing with slavery the Whig party broke!
A regional party made up of Abolitionists and some former Whigs rose up and ran John C. Fremont for President. He lost, but the smart guys in the meaningful factions and special interests began to change sides rapidly. By the time the Republicans nominated Abraham Lincoln for President in 1860, the Republicans had absorbed ALL the Northern Whig adherents as well as the Abolitionists ~ who'd never really become a party on their own. Abe, BTW, had been a Whig railroad lawyer!
There were other dislocations taking place in the Democrat party, and a couple of other regional parties began growing ~ Abe was elected ~ the South attacked ~ and those regional parties became a whisper echoing down the corridors of history.
Afterwards what can only be described as a BIMODAL SADDLE developed an iron grip on American politics. You would be a Republican or a Democrat, the names of the two large poles around which American politics gravitated, or you were part of a FRINGE ~ a really thin fringe. You would vote for your party's candidates even if you didn't like them.
This structure rapidly gravitated to a near 50/50 split ~ and finally, in 1876 ~ 11 years after the end of the Civil War ~ Tilden and Hayes split the vote so neatly no one won the Presidency.
The tie was broken when the Republicans agreed to end Reconstruction and withdraw the Army from occupying Southern states. That had the effect of abandoning both black people and Southern Republicans to Southern mobs who proceeded over time to murder in excess of 30,000 Republican candidates for public office in the South.
The Republicans, then, became a National party with a regional base outside the South, and the Democrats became a National party with a regional base inside the South.
And so things were until the rise of the Progressives.
Without belaboring the point it will suffice to say that we have a two-party system because that's what works here. We also thrash out our coalitions BEFORE running people for office, and you even see a bit of that going on in Germany these days ~ and some former East Bloc states have discovered that phenomenon as well. Europeans do the coalition thing after the elections ~ which, in my opinion, is just too late to result in meaningful cultural change. That's why the French keep drifting from Traditionalism to Socialism ~ with quite arguably destructive results.
The UK seems to be the only state that can run a relatively stable three party system. That is probably attributable to the system that allocates more representation to the Scots than is justified by population. More equitable allocation of seats/ridings would likely bring some order to that out of control situation
“Politics is like a caterpillar track - disappearing off to the left and being renewed from the right.”
Love your simile.
Sometimes I hear things I know had to be written in the UK.
That would be one of them.