I'm aware of this question, which mentions among other factors Duverger's law; however, the answers seem incomplete because not all countries with plurality voting and/or single representation systems generally result in two and only two parties electing legislators. Even in other countries that have two dominant parties and/or use a FPTP system, there still tends to be at least some legislators that are either independent or not from the dominant parties. Why then are third-party legislators in the United States much rarer than in other countries with FPTP and/or two-party dominant systems? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One reason the UK has so many parties is that the Scots want a party, the Welsh want a party, the Catholics in occupied Ireland want a party, the Protestants want a party, the less conservative Protestants want a party, the centrist Englanders want a party and the parliamentary system allows them to do that. Also, you can get fired for not voting with your party's majority (I think) while you can't in America which further encourages more parties in Britain. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two-party system#Causes talks about it. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you see two parties, you're looking at it wrong. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One party's senators say global warming's bullshit and the other has $15 minimum wage in its platform. Are they really more similar than they're different? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The apparent differences are manufactured to promote discontent. People feel more involved in voting when they're voting against something they don't like or to protect something they do. Makes the skirmishing seem worthwhile. If one side had too many negative associations, it'd fail, so they divvy them up carefully, ensuring a constant loop of yesbutism in the public sphere that's singularly devoted to them. All part of the United States Chamber of Commerce's scaly (as in balanced) agenda. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I think some of the Senators and Representatives actually believe conservatism or liberalism to some extent. They're probably smart enough to not believe the stupidest things of each side though (i.e. vaccines cause autism). It's the ones that just pick the home team (i.e. live in Hawaii = Democrat) and pander to get in power or fencesit and flipflop that are alike. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because the 2 main parties always managed to prevent a splitup of their branch or wing by being very inclusive. To illustrate this its interesting to compare the scenario with that of the House of Representatives (Japan) where the Liberal Democratic Party almost exclusively ruled with huge majority since 1955 and/because the opposition is so fragmented that it does not manage compete against that, even in coalitions. I seems both US parties where smart and lucky enough to prevent a scenario change till now. --Kharon (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The answer is simple. There is one party, with two wings; the establishment and the incumbents. To mutual advantage, the Democrats and Republicans have gerrymandered safe seats in most districts. The US Federal Election Commission has three Republican seats, and three Democratic seats. This extra-Constitutional body sets election guidelines, and famously decided after the 1992 election, in which Ross Perot was included in the debates, that any third-party candidate garnering at least 5% of polling nationally would be included in future debates. In 1996, Perot was polling well above this, but was arbitrarily excluded by the commission's declaration that Perot was not a "serious" candidate.

In most states the setup is the same. The Democrats and the Republicans often automatically get ballot slots, while third parties face onerous burdens getting signatures from each voting district to petition to be on the ballot. These petitions are often sabotaged by false-flag signature "collectors" and prohibitively expensive lawsuits challenging and disqualifying the petition results. State party committees arbitrarily keep candidates of the ballot, like Pat Buchanan in 1996 in NY State when he tried to mount a primary challenge against the anointed establishment choice, Bob Dole. Once in power, third-party winners like Jesse Ventura find neither party will support their agenda. The US basically has an unconstitutional establishment of party, by which the system is rigged in favor of the incumbents in every way possible. μηδείς (talk) 05:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Federal Communications Commission is directed by Republicans and Democrats, too, appointed by Democrats and Republicans. You can find them talking about each other on most every basic channel, but if you want alternative views, you need to buy a speciality (or better yet, premium) package. This pricing plan allows people like Brian L. Roberts to claim nonpartisanship by donating thousands of dollars to "both" parties, as well as providing "both" with the sort of omnipresent platform that keeps "them" at around 75 million members to the Libertarians' 500,000. You don't see such political crap in Canadian TV's shadowy cabal. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There may have been a few more third party Representatives and Senators now if this wasn't the case but do you think there'd be close to a 3-way split in the legislature but 2-way in the executive? The Founding Fathers required a majority of Electoral College votes to avoid being decided by the House (also 50%+1) because they wanted a President with broad appeal, not the kind of thing that happened in 1860 when the South started seceding pre-inauguration cause each layer of Southness picked a different President and Lincoln won. If there were 3 major parties Republicans would win less often and the Centrist Party would win more often than anyone if the voters didn't screw up the tricky game theory-like game. Otherwise, a Bernie Sanders-like guy would win with not much over 33% every so often. Would you be okay with that? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you assume that voters have preferences described by a single linear dimension, there is no advantage in forming a "Centrist Party". You do better by taking a position just to one side of the other party, and sniping all the voters to that side.

The reason that more than two parties can succeed is that voters' preferences are not in fact one-dimensional. Somehow, in the United States, the multidimensional space of preferences has been projected along a single, not very well-motivated "left–right" axis, and though that axis makes no philosophical sense whatsoever, it seems to have a distressing amount of staying power. I don't really know why. Answer that question, and maybe the original question will also become clear. Or not. --Trovatore (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How would you suggest it could move to a more philosophically accurate system like a 2-axes system without proportional representation? Could a 4-party system work for a President instead of a Prime Minister? Even removing the majority requirement from Electoral College votes would require a Constitutional amendment. There were only 2 parties at the very beginning and periods of fracturing and realignment into 2 different parties so it certainly has staying power. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's always been the tube. 42 years later, it's just gone serial. If bicentennial Americans were reluctant about turning off a TV mid-sentence, the millennials are damn sure not about to voluntarily disconnect from Wi-Fi or delete their Facebooks while everyone else stays in the loop. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The OP has been answered with relevant facts and links. It is not our place to wander off into "How would you suggest it could move to a more philosophically accurate system like a 2-axes system without proportional representation?" land. Ref Desk, not message board. μηδείς (talk) 00:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Was Pope Adrian IV of Norman descent or is he considered of Anglo-Saxon descent? Would he have spoken Middle English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.39.38.154 (talk) 01:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The ODNB says "a web of myth surrounds his origins, and no doubt much is later tradition woven at the great abbey of St Albans. But the following facts seem reliable. He was born in or near St Albans (Matthew Paris says he came from Abbots Langley) and was given the name of Nicholas. His father was Richard, as is certainly stated in a contemporary calendar of obits, not Robert (de Camera) as Matthew Paris says; allegedly and probably a priest, Richard later became a monk of St Albans. He may have been a married priest, for during the course of Pope Adrian IV's struggle against the emperor Frederick Barbarossa, it was widely proclaimed by imperial propagandists that this was so. Nicholas had a brother, Ranulf or Randulf, clerk of Feering, Essex, a church in the patronage of the abbot and convent of Westminster, who alleged that Ranulf retained it after he had become an Augustinian canon at Missenden." So, it seems that we don't really know much about his origins. I've seen it argued in other fora that he is more likely to have been of Saxon than Norman descent, but nothing that we could regard as a reliable source. DuncanHill (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

His alleged birthplace is Bedmond, a little village about a mile away from Abbots Langley and a gentle afternoon's walk (five miles or so) from St Albans in the other direction. Seems a bit of a lowly place for a Norman only 40 years after the Conquest, but that's a bit circumstantial. I found Nicholas Breakspear: Englishman and Pope by Tarleton, Alfred Henry, (London, 1896) which starts by saying: "The records of his origin are conflicting and scanty...". Alansplodge (talk) 02:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He left England at some point before 1137, and it's very doubtful whether you can really talk about Middle English existing at that time. These periodizations are a bit arbitrary, so that for example our article on Middle English can't decide whether it began in 1100 or 1150, but it only gives a reference for the latter date, and most scholars would date the transition of Old English to Middle English to somewhere around 1150. So the question is whether he spoke Late Old English, Anglo-Norman or both, and I'm afraid no-one can definitively answer it for you. --Antiquary (talk) 10:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC) Now I've edited the Middle English article – 1150ed it up. --Antiquary (talk) 10:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some kind of mountain range between the two? Or are they different because of the Cold War and Communism? 140.254.70.225 (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One division was religion-based, which was long before the Commies came along. Read Western Europe and its "See also" links for some insight. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not exactly the Iron Curtain line though, Poland's very Catholic and Religion in the Czech Republic is more Western than Eastern Christianity (to the extent that religion has survived which isn't too much). Northeast Germany switched sides after the unpleasantness transferred it to Poland. Greece was geographically and religiously Eastern but Iron Curtain west. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I don't think religion is a strong criteria. Yes, Russia is traditionally mostly Russian Orthodox, but Poland is as Catholic as France (was) or Spain, while the Czechs had a significant early Protestant (Hussite) population. More relevant might be that most of Western Europe was part of the Western Roman and/or the Holy Roman Empires, with mostly Germanic and Romanic or Romanised populations, while Eastern Europe was more influenced by Byzantium and even Asian powers like the Mongols, and has mostly Slavic populations and languages. Western Europe also has better access to the oceans, and hence came to prominence during the age of discoveries and the rise in overseas trade, while Eastern Europe was more isolated. But historically, the difference has not been so strong - it really became cemented after WW2. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• What divides Western and Eastern Europe?Central Europe. Blueboar (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant articles at Regions of Europe and Europe#Definition. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also: Iron curtain 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:16C:7A91:B68E:A1BB (talk) 00:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What divides Europe and Asia? Or Asia and Africa? Or North and South America? Or countries? These are all social constructs. They are what humans say they are, and they can and do change over time. As others have noted, common dividing criteria include the division between centum and satem languages, religious differences, and once belonging to the Western and Eastern Roman Empires. None of these are themselves a definitive way of carving things up, because we're talking about nebulous, messy human categorizations. --47.157.122.192 (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No one has linked to Eastern Europe so far; the lead of that article quotes this page which puts it: "Unfortunately, there are almost as many definitions of Eastern Europe as there are scholars of the region." --Theurgist (talk) 08:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to find an answer to this either on Wikipedia or otherwise online, but I've had no luck. The capital of the Western Roman Empire moved a couple times as rulers of the late empire chose to make different cities home to their primary residence. But when an Emperor declared a new capital, did the senate move with him? Was the Roman senate ever in Milan or Ravenna, or did it stay put? Someguy1221 (talk) 23:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Rome remained the seat of the Roman Senate..." — Deliyannis, Deborah Mauskopf (2010). Ravenna in Late Antiquity: AD; 7. Ravenna capital: 600-850 AD. Cambridge University Press. p. 41. ISBN 9780521836722.

2606:A000:4C0C:E200:16C:7A91:B68E:A1BB (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Awesome. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We actually have a detailed article on the Roman Senate, which explains that the Senate remained in the city of Rome until last mentioned in 603. In 630, the Curia Julia (the building used for Senate sessions) was converted into a church, probably signifying that the Senate had ceased to exist. Dimadick (talk) 11:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see now Curia#Senate_House contains information on the three main Curias, which were all in Rome. And I did read that article, actually. I just felt like, with the movement of the capital not being mentioned at all in that article, I wasn't sure if the movement of the senate either never happened, or was omitted. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]