We Need 3 Major Parties

[DevonRex]

62. That was made impossible by the framers of the Constitution.

Personally, I believe at least some of them knew it and wanted that outcome, just as they wanted parties to be totally private even as they railed against the very existence of parties in various Federalist Papers. I think that some of them knew quite well that in this new world they were the elite. They had money and power now. And influence. Perhaps they determined that they would rather their money, power and influence go unchecked by government in a private party system rather than in a parliamentary system which incorporates parties into the government, thus enabling the existence and influence of multiple parties. You see, in one step they have lessened the will of the people and increased their own power.
http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/voting.html
1790 Only white male adult property-owners have the right to vote.
1810 Last religious prerequisite for voting is eliminated.
1850 Property ownership and tax requirements eliminated by 1850. Almost all adult white males could vote.
1855 Connecticut adopts the nation's first literacy test for voting. Massachusetts follows suit in 1857. The tests were implemented to discriminate against Irish-Catholic immigrants.
1870 The 15th Amendment is passed. It gives former slaves the right to vote and protects the voting rights of adult male citizens of any race.

Read more: U.S. Voting Rights | Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/voting.html#ixzz2UQpkpZtY

Think about it. Every step of the way, from deciding to revolt, all through gathering support for that revolt both here and abroad, they formed their own coalitions or parties, did they not? Of course they did. In the course of waging the war it was the same. In the period between the war's end and the final draft of the Constitution, there were many coalitions formed around all sorts of affairs of governance.

In drafting the Constitution itself, there were many changes. First the Articles of Confederation which wasn't sufficient. Then the they got serious and it went back and forth forever with people arguing and taking sides and banding together over issues. Yes, banding together. That's the nature of man. We band together for support and security. What's more we must come together for agreement in the end. So their railing about parties was nonsensical from the outset. Ridiculous even. Every person here who rails about people putting party above ideology will, in the end, vote for someone who belongs to a party. Why? Because they are necessary. But we can only have 2 major ones because of what the framers did.