Multi-Party US
What if we were more like Europe?
One of my favorite genres of alternative history content is the hypothetical where America, rather than having two large parties, instead has a diverse collection, similar to what you would see in much of Europe or Israel.
JJ McCollough made a great video on exactly this type of hypothetical, and I highly recommend watching it.
Part of the reason these scenarios are so much fun is American democracy, in at least one way, is really quite boring; we have had the same two major parties for nearly two centuries now, and that doesn’t seem poised to change in the near future1. Not only do the parties not change from election to election, but they both have a tendency towards boring centrism due to the inevitable pressure of the median voter theorem.
Trump’s abandonment of traditional Republican economic policy while taking a much harder stance on migration is a form of centrism, after all.
Of course, this stability is generally a very good thing, but it has the effect of obscuring the true level of political diversity in America. Our large parties are more analogous to governing coalitions in a country like Germany than they are to any of the individual parties within that system. Both the Republicans and Democrats contain diverse and contradictory voting bases who are held together only by a basic left-right cultural dimension and ethnic partisan loyalty. Often, it feels like people outside of America struggle to really realize this. It is, of course, quite easy to miss the little details of a country you don’t live in.
So, given the above and how much fun I had writing my, at least somewhat spicy, article on the factions within the current Republican Party, I have decided to write a description of the major factions, as I see them, in US politics right now through the lens of an alternative reality where these groupings are given more formal representation.
The Scenario’s Rules and Caveats:
For the rest of this essay, we will assume that the US has a unicameral legislature with biannual2 elections. Any party that gets more than 3% of the national vote is assigned a proportional number of seats in Congress via a party list, totally removing federalism from the legislative system. The presidency—including its archaic method of election, the judiciary, and everything else—is otherwise unchanged. All of this has been true since the foundation of the country, and it has somehow impacted nothing at all, meaning everything important—from the Civil War to post-War liberalism—remains intact.
Importantly, this means that the factions who are currently inside the right and left coalitions, as I see it under the current system, will still be aligned with the relative groupings, with some small changes. In a more standard European system, for example, I would expect the RINO wing of the Republicans and the Blue Dogs (center-left) faction of the Democrats to work together, but in this timeline, they do not. The point is more to talk about current politics and have some fun drafting an alternative history using this framework than to try to think through the history of a society with a totally different electoral system3.
Meat and Potatoes:
America is still divided into two large right and left-wing coalitions who would alternate power every 4–12 years. In 2025, these coalitions are:
The “Make America Great Again” or MAGA coalition (which is represented by the color red) and the Our Democracy coalition (which uses blue).
MAGA would consist of the following parties, comprising 52% of Congress:
“Trump” (23%)
Republicans (6%)
American Dream (6%)
Catholic Party (13%)
Libertarian Party (4%)
Our Democracy would comprise another 48%:
Association of Colored People(ACP) (9%)
Blue Dogs (6%)
Progressive Party – “Bull Moose” (12%)
Democrats (21%)
In 2024, the MAGA coalition regained a majority after it was able to both expand its vote share and attract the Catholic and American Dream parties into its grouping. Trump’s reelection to the presidency over Kamala Harris means they have full control of government and have thus far managed to hold together since then, despite a series of bumps created by Trump.
Going over each party in order:
Starting with MAGA:
Trump:
Leader: Don Jr.
Seat Share: 23%
Trump, named after the President, operates as the exclusive political vehicle of the Orange Man. Created in 2022 for that year's election, it is the product of tension between Trump and more centrist Republicans in the aftermath of January 6th. On three separate occasions, the Republicans voted—and failed—to remove him from his leadership position. However, Trump decided to leave on his own terms over opposition to members of his party sitting on the January 6th commission. Trump was able to enter Congress in 2022 after his party won a shocking 12% of the vote, far above their polling numbers, effectively ending the Evangelical Party, which for the first time since their formation in 1972 failed to cross 3%, and bringing the Republicans to their lowest level since before the Civil War.
The Trump party lacks obvious policy positions other than support for the current administration, and its tides rise and fall with the President’s brand. In 2024, their seat share rose to 23%, which makes it the largest party in Congress and by far the largest party in the MAGA coalition. No one truly expects them to outlive 2028, which leads to a very ad hoc party structure where they are simultaneously extremely organized—everyone votes with Trump(the man)—and extremely disorganized—they are constantly engaging in “internal” public spats.
The knowledge that the party is doomed to disappear sooner rather than later, meaning representatives will lose their seats, has combined with a vetting process that was universally agreed to have been haphazard at best, resulting in a collection of representatives who are often mired in controversy and chicanery. But scandal and controversy aside, they continue to poll at about a quarter of the vote, and much to the dismay of the mainstream media, nothing has thus far managed to stick.
Republicans:
Leader: Susan Collins
Seat Share: 6%
The consensus about the Republican party online is that they are cucks. First, they failed to remove Trump after January 6th—only for him to leave anyway—and second, they have continued to operate inside of his coalition despite being a constant object of ridicule. After he left, the only people who remained were centrist Republicans, and the party pivoted to the left on almost every issue. Notably, they are the most vocally pro-choice faction in the MAGA coalition by far, although American Dream often votes with them on this subject.
Despite, or perhaps because of, their moderation, they collapsed in the polls after Trump’s departure. Only the prestige of their name and the strength of their institutions have kept them from evaporating totally. 2024 was the lowest vote share for the party, lower than 2022, and the polls indicate that 2026 might even be worse. Even so, because without their support Trump lacks control of Congress, they have ended up wielding enormous influence over the actual policy of the administration.
Many “respectable” people, in fact, argue that it is their insistence on him abiding by the forms, if not the actual functions, of our constitutional system that has thus far kept his administration from violating court orders. In the aftermath of the Kilmar Abrego García controversy, there was talk of them leaving the coalition over rule-of-law issues, but they opted not to, and the situation was defused by time.
American Dream:
Seat Share: 6%
Leader: Elon Musk (defacto but not dejure)
2022 turned out to be one of the most important elections in American history. Not only did “Trump” enter the arena, but Elon Musk also made his debut in electoral politics, despite officially not standing for office. His new party, “American Dream,” won just over 3%, literally entering Congress by fewer than 1,000 votes.
From a policy perspective, this is the accelerationist faction. Yet, since there is substantial disagreement about what should be accelerated and how, they have an absolute clusterfuck of positions drawn from across the political spectrum. However, they are in agreement over the need for regulatory, spending, and immigration reform. Their refusal to vote for the Big Beautiful Bill over concerns it did not do enough to close the deficit stalled its progress for months and has drawn the fury of Trump.
Additionally, since the election overlapped roughly with the closing of his purchase of Twitter (renamed X), Elon suddenly had huge power, which he began to use to influence the country. Our Democracy, which had barely lost control of Congress in 2022, hesitated to invite Elon formally into their coalition after pressure from progressives, who were largely in control of the administration at the time. This move, which denied them a majority and left Congress hung—since Elon did not join MAGA—was seen at the time by centrist liberals, and is now agreed by the general public (at least silently), to have been an enormous blunder, as it ultimately resulted in Elon—and by extension, a broad swath of the tech elite—becoming more and more associated with the right.
In 2024, after the failed assassination attempt on Trump, American Dream formally announced they would be going into coalition with MAGA. On election night, they more than doubled their 2022 results and narrowly passed the Republican party. Notably, the party did surprisingly well in the Bay Area and NYC, which drew significant attention from the press to “secret MAGA voters” in blue cities.
Since then, Elon’s time at DOGE and his personal temperament have crushed the party in the polls, and it’s unclear what their future holds, or even if they will stay in the MAGA coalition at all. Elon’s recent spat with Trump online only highlights the instability of the party. However, the demographic they represent is a legitimate one, and Musk departing as the shadow leader might result in a better and less distracted party that will recover in the polls before 2026.
Catholic Party:
Seat Share: 13%
Leader: Joe Manchin
With its origins in the 19th century as an advocate for Catholic migrants from the Old World, they have had a tendency to take on the cultural forms of America's most recent Catholic migrants. For example, since the 1990s, the party, which does extremely well within the Hispanic-American community, has taken on more and more of their values and interests. However, this is by no means the “Hispanic party,” and they continue to do well across the entire country, from the suburbs of Chicago to NYC. In fact, their leadership is still dominated by Italian and Irish Americans.
For a long time, the party has been a member of America’s left-wing coalition, especially under FDR’s Democratic party, but since the 2010s they have been slowly shifting rightward. This process culminated in 2024 when they officially changed coalitions and joined MAGA. Perhaps even more than Trump’s election to the presidency, this has dealt an enormous blow to Our Democracy, and their leaders in the Democratic Party have no obvious path to remedy it. Since the Catholic party left primarily over cultural issues such as trans inclusion and abortion, it will be hard to convince them to return without alienating the left wing of the coalition. But they hold 13%, which means there is no path to a majority that doesn’t involve winning them back somehow, even if only in a Canadian-style confidence-and-supply agreement.
From a policy perspective, the party is an eclectic combination of broadly economically left and socially right positions. Online, there is a joke that they support the left when they talk about economics and the right when they talk about culture. It was, in fact, their support of Dobbs which finally led to the collapse of their relationship with the left after a bitter factional war; this conflict undermined what was originally thought to be a slam-dunk issue. Simultaneously, the indiscriminate deportations of otherwise law-abiding illegals have offended many of the members who originally supported Trump, and Our Democracy has been trying to hammer this issue relentlessly in hopes of creating a wedge.
They have thus far mostly kept quiet in exchange for concessions on economic issues from Trump, such as continuing his policy of economic nationalism.
Libertarian:
Seat Share: 4%
Leader: Rand Paul
The Libertarian party has a long and storied history. Founded in the mid-20th century, it managed to enter Congress in 1976 and has stayed there since, peaking at 8% of the vote in 1988. Since 2022, the Mises Caucus has largely run the party, and it has become increasingly more radical in its demands to dismantle FDR’s principate. This radicalism has come with less and less influence over the MAGA coalition, but their votes are important for any right-wing coalition, and so they continue to staff positions in the administration and seats on committees.
It is unclear where the party is headed exactly, and there is talk they might merge with the National Patriotic party(not represented in Congress), but thus far it has been at loggerheads over the issue of denationalization (both parties support it, but for different, though overlapping, groups).
Opposition
The second-largest grouping is the Our Democracy coalition, which currently holds 45% of the seats in Congress.
Democrats:
Leader: Empty
Seat Share: 21%
Without a doubt the most powerful party on the American left, the Democrats have a history stretching back to the early 19th century during the Jacksonian era. For a while in the 1930s, the party held an outright majority of Congress on their own under FDR, the first and only time this has ever happened in American history, and they continue to wield huge prestige.
Primarily representing college-educated professionals with an interest in preserving the status quo liberal international system, it is a behemoth on the national stage and only passed by Trump. Unlike that party, though, the Democrats operate as a well-oiled political machine with friendly newspapers, positive coverage in academia and among activists, and a deep bench of local and state government officials. On policy, they hold close to the Washington neoliberal consensus, although Biden did move them to the left on economic issues, meaning they are generally supportive of moderate social welfare spending and more substantive cultural leftism.
Notably, the party absolutely dominates in DC and the surrounding areas, meaning that a, frankly, absurd fraction of the federal workforce votes Democratic. This provides the party with an enormous advantage with the actual nuts and bolts of governance when they are in power, and unlike Trump, they are generally able to have a good working relationship with the “Deep State.”
Nevertheless, in the aftermath of Biden’s withdrawal from his candidacy for president—but bizarrely not party leadership—and Kamala’s eventual defeat, the party is in many ways in disarray. They have been unable to elect a leader and currently are operating without anyone at the head, only furthering conspiracies about a secret cabal that really runs the party, and are riven between basically three factions.
First, a grouping which represents the interests of the American government workers. Since nearly 24 million Americans are employed by the government at either the federal, state, or local level, this is a very powerful contingent and is the most “conservative” (small c) of any faction in the country. Second, cultural liberals. Unlike the previous faction, which is, relatively, agnostic on culture but passionate about government spending—for obvious reasons—this wing is dispassionate about economics but strong on cultural leftism. They represent a multitude of factions, from feminists to queer rights advocates, but all of them are united in a desire to expand the moral circle as wide as possible. Third, immigrants. Since the 1970s, as the share of the population that was foreign-born has exploded, more and more come from backgrounds that make membership in the Catholic party unpalatable. Since they also don’t feel comfortable in more left-wing parties like the Progressives or the ACP, which is mostly an ethnic Black party, the Democrats have become their natural home.
Broadly socially and economically liberal, but extreme in neither, this faction has grown in power in the previous decade and now wields significant influence inside the party. Dominated by affluent Asian immigrants, they tend to be concentrated in big cities and the Bay, but have historically been relatively politically silent, a fact which is rapidly changing under the Trump administration.
Which impulse will win out and which leader the party will select is one of the most important issues right now in American politics, and one which will take significantly more time and infighting to resolve.
Association of Colored People (ACP):
Leader: James Clyburn
Seat Share: 9%
Founded in 1911 during the nadir of race relations in the US as a vehicle for the interests of Blacks in the Midwest and Northeast who had not been disenfranchised by Southern laws, the Association of Colored People (ACP) is probably the major party in the US that elicits the strongest emotional response, both from its supporters and its detractors.
To one group of Americans, it is seen as the vanguard of the single most important issue in American history: the gradual dismantlement of an explicitly White supremacist system dating back arguably to before the actual foundation of this country. To others, it is an explicitly racist party devoted to the destruction of this nation. In reality, the party is a relatively conservative force that advocates for gradual change and attracts a disproportionate amount of attention due to its history and name.
During 2020, there was an attempt to take over the leadership by BLM activists, but this was defeated in an overwhelming party election which brought James Clyburn to power. Then, during the Biden presidency, the party was continually at odds with the Progressive party over the direction of that administration, in particular on the issue of migration and the relative importance of other social issues such as queer inclusion.
That being said, this party is not “conservative” in the sense of the MAGA coalition, and it continues to be a strong supporter of the welfare state that exists, the strengthening of civil rights law, and the revitalization of blighted American cities. Some of its members have a tendency to post inflammatory stuff on social media—in particular related to the Israel-Palestine issue—but since the 1990s, the party represents the growing Black middle class spread across America’s suburbs and the South more than a revolutionary proletarian mass focused on “liberation.”
This has not always been true, and as late as the 1980s the party had a large, explicitly, Black Nationalist wing. Today, it is divided into two factions: one which represents the historical party core in cities like Chicago or Detroit (often referred to as the Old Guard), and another which is mostly based out of the rural and suburban South and is sometimes called, perhaps disparagingly, the “Farmers.” The first faction tends to be more liberal on most issues and, despite consistently representing a minority of the party, often holds important mayoral positions which give it a national stage.
As of today, the party still wins the majority of the Black vote and has polled around 10%, give or take 2%, since the 1970s, with no obvious signs of changing.
Blue Dogs:
Leader: Marie Gluesenkamp Perez
Seat Share: 6%
The Blue Dogs, along with ACP, represent the “right” of the Our Democracy coalition. Originally formed in the late 1990s as a vehicle to represent the interests of the right-wing faction of the Democratic party which was being crushed in the South and Appalachia during the Clinton administration, they have had a turbulent history.
Their vote share originally peaked in 2008, where they—riding support for Obama—won almost 15% of the vote due to attracting voters in states like Indiana and Iowa in addition to their traditional heartland in the South. By 2010, however, the party was nearly destroyed and had fallen below 4%.
Trump, in particular his denial of the outcome in 2020, has moderately revived the party, and increasingly they represent people who are disgusted and frustrated with the Trump administration but who still have strong feelings on issues such as illegal migration, the deficit, and “wokism.”
Their name is a play on “Yellow Dog Democrats,” who were said to be so loyal they would vote for a yellow dog before any Republican, and they continue to represent this faction today. Much like the Republicans in MAGA, they are an object of constant criticism, and yet they refuse to abandon the coalition.
Progressive – “Bull Moose”:
Leader: Bernie Sanders
Seat Share: 12%
There is simply no party in Congress with a larger gap between their actual vote share and their influence over policy. Founded in the 1912 election to represent Teddy Roosevelt, they have managed to remain in Congress continually for over a century. Originally focused primarily on economic issues, the party pivoted to the left on culture in the postwar era, particularly during the Vietnam War, and now represents the left-wing faction of the coalition on every issue.
The party is perhaps most comparable to the NDP in Canada in the sense that they see their role as being the defenders of the left in a coalition that is, at best, inconsistently committed to those ideals. In the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder, they reached the zenith of their political influence, and their recent victory over more centrist leftists in the NYC mayoral election primary—meaning they will probably elect Zorhan as mayor—means they have a strong future ahead of them.
They are uniquely well-represented in the “Cathedral,” and a disproportionate number of journalists and academics are members of the party, which grants them enormous cultural influence. For a while, they were also extremely influential over tech—Twitter was jokingly referred to as their private platform before it was purchased by Elon—but this has since faded, and the party is more and more opposed to AI with every passing day.
Although they had significant influence over the Biden administration, their small(ish) share of the vote and tendency to get into conflict with larger parties within the Our Democracy coalition has left a bad taste in the mouths of the dominant Democrats, who blame them for alienating the billionaire tech class and generally creating a “bad” image for the party, which is trying to present as centrist in the aftermath of their defeat.
But for now, the party will continue to wield influence over their faction, because although there is frustration from the Democrats and ACP over their rhetorical or political strategy, there is little disagreement over where the parties would like to “end up,” so to speak, and their commitment wins them begrudging respect from the other parties and adoration from activists.
One last thing: Palestine has become a more and more dominant issue for this party, and there has been talk of possibly removing Bernie Sanders from his position of leadership for being insufficiently critical of Israel. As of yet, the party has not fractured; if they did, it is unlikely they would cross the threshold and be able to enter Congress.
Let me know if you think I left anything out or got anything wrong!!
For $5/month or $50/year, you'll gain access to all my paywalled articles(including this one) and earn a permanent spot in my heart.
Whatever Elon thinks, you cannot bring back 2013 Reddit either.
Every two years
I wouldn’t try to impose too much rationality on this timeline if you want to have fun.
Parliamentary parties in Europe mainly seem to result in hugely unequal election outcomes (I.e. labor getting a ton of seats without a ton of votes). All the electoral games mostly seem to amount to the status quo elite consensus being able to retain power regardless of the votes.
"they both have a tendency towards boring centrism due to the inevitable pressure of the median voter theorem"
This isn't true in the US because of its unique primary system. It creates a bi-median voter distribution where a median is found within each primary system and then these two medians face off against each other in a second round of voting.
This is why the US swings much more harshly than European countries after elections.
The US has median districts, but these don't really have much influence at the time of generating policy ideas. They have some power when it comes to negotiating coalitions to pass legislation, but it's minimal.
Also, the US does not even have political parties in the way the do in all other democracies. US "parties" are just marketing brands that voters and politicians associate with for convenience. Individual politicians can do whatever they want, and often do, and can't be punished for it by the party organisation (essentially just a marketing board).
Abolishing the primary-general two round system for proportional representation would not be a cosmetic change, it would be a radical and permanent shake up of American politics.