I think the "generational dynasty of parties" may be a bit overstated. The origins of today's Democratic Party go back to Jefferson, and the GOP goes back to Lincoln, but today's versions of those parties are nothing like their predecessors.
If we got rid of our first past the post electoral system it would create space for other parties to emerge.
It's difficult to say and I'd be the first to argue it is perhaps overstated as well. But based on three periods from 1800-1980, I wouldn't discount that parties are able to capitalize on events and dominate a half-century or more. Jeffersonian Dems were 180 degrees different than FDR Dems -- but it didn't stop the New Dealers from their dynasty.
Is this the result of first-past-the-post? Possibly. But one could also argue Parliamentary elections have given Conservatives about twice the time as ruling party compared to Labour in the 20th century.
I think the "generational dynasty of parties" may be a bit overstated. The origins of today's Democratic Party go back to Jefferson, and the GOP goes back to Lincoln, but today's versions of those parties are nothing like their predecessors.
If we got rid of our first past the post electoral system it would create space for other parties to emerge.
It's difficult to say and I'd be the first to argue it is perhaps overstated as well. But based on three periods from 1800-1980, I wouldn't discount that parties are able to capitalize on events and dominate a half-century or more. Jeffersonian Dems were 180 degrees different than FDR Dems -- but it didn't stop the New Dealers from their dynasty.
Is this the result of first-past-the-post? Possibly. But one could also argue Parliamentary elections have given Conservatives about twice the time as ruling party compared to Labour in the 20th century.
Oh, I certainly think parties have long dominant periods.