Willem de Vlaming, January 2026
⸻ ⓦ ⸻
In Europe, politicians are accountable to their party and its members. Voters hold the parties responsible for governance and delivery on their program. When in government politicians are also accountable to their coalition partners for delivery on the coalition agreement)
(With exception of a party with no members, and the French president)
In the U.S., politicians are accountable mainly to voters directly, from one election to the next election, with no formal party-based governance or enforcement in between. In the U.S. elections are not run on party programs but mainly on individuals and party brand --- with very little soft checks and balances.
> U.S. party conventions: are about celebration and branding, not policy, leadership and governance
> European party congresses : are about policy, leadership and governance
NL / EU
Membership Formal membership; pay dues; Participate in internal governance|
Rights of members Vote on party leadership, programs, and coalition agreements
Candidate selection Party-controlled lists, internal elections
Influence over policy Direct; through congresses, party votes
Ability to exit Easy; can form/join a new party
USA
Membership Usually just registering as a voter; passive label
Rights of members Cannot propose policy or enforce party discipline; mostly vote in primaries
Candidate selection Candidates run in primaries; party leadership has limited control |
Influence over policy Minimal; symbolic platform only
Ability to exit Difficult; losing party affiliation = loss of influence
Dutch parties embed members into governance; U.S. “party membership” is mostly identitarian and symbolic.
Netherlands / Europe:
> Parties are collective actors, oriented toward governing and coalition-building.
> MPs have formal free mandates, but social norms and incentives enforce cohesion.
> Factions that disagree can split off or form new parties without destabilizing the system.
U.S.A.
> Parties are brands and electoral platforms, not governance collectives.
> Registered voters are passive; loyalty is driven by social identity, not policy.
> Extreme or highly organized factions can capture the party because exit is difficult and internal influence of voters is minimal.
Feature >>> Netherlands >>> U.S.
Electoral system >>> Proportional representation >>> First-past-the-post (winner-takes-all)
Coalition formation >>> Mandatory; negotiated post-election >>> No formal coalition; president and legislature separate
Party influence on government >>> Strong; programs and coalition agreements bind MPs >>> Weak; policy emerges ad hoc from elected individuals
Minor/third parties >>> Easy to start; almost same rights >>> Very difficult; ballot access and legal recognition favor Dems/Rep |
Risk of factional capture >>> Low; new parties can split off >>>| High; small factions can dominate entire party label |
The U.S. system structurally favors two-party dominance and incentivizes internal faction capture.
Europe (Netherlands):
> Voters choose parties with clear and detailed programs, used in governance and coalition agreements.
> Policy emerges from negotiation, and membership can influence direction.
U.S.:
> Voters mostly choose individuals, not policies.
> Party platforms are symbolic; actual policy is determined by elected officials, negotiations, and factional power.
> Polarization is amplified by identity perception rather than substantive policy differences.
U.S. politics is person- and identity-centered, while Dutch politics is program- and coalition-centered.
Factor >>> Netherlands >>> U.S.
Incentives for compromise >>> High; coalition government requires negotiation >>> Low; primary voters reward extremes
Party loyalty >>> Based on collective responsibility >>> Based on identity perception (“us vs. them”)
Extremist faction influence >>> Limited; exit is viable >>> Amplified; identity loyalty prevents resistance
Media & narrative >>> Moderate; multiple parties moderate framing >>> Polarized; amplifies extreme voices
Outcome >>> Common ground & compromise >>> Conflict, factional capture, polarization
Dutch system encourages looking for common ground, U.S. system encourages 'winner takes all' hot divisions.
NL / EU: Party = collective actor, accountable to members and coalition partners; governance is the goal.
U.S.: Party = brand + electoral machine, accountable to identity loyalty; winning elections is the goal.
Europe: “We act together.” U.S.: “We are us.”
U.S. parties are highly vulnerable to factional capture: Winner-takes-all elections + primaries + strong identity loyalty allow small, motivated factions to dominate.
Policy divergence vs perception: The “rift” between Democrats and Republicans is amplified by identity, even though each party has broad internal diversity.
Limited voter control: Registered U.S. party voters have no formal influence over party direction or policy, unlike Dutch party members.
Systemic entrenchment: Legal and structural rules make U.S. a systemically two-party system, not just a product of voter preference.
The systems are almost mirror opposites in logic: one maximizes collective deliberation, the other maximizes identity-driven mobilization:
NL: collective responsibility, policy-driven, easy exit for factions, proportional, coalition-focused.
U.S.: identity-driven, election-focused, hard exit for factions, winner-takes-all, polarized, vulnerable to faction capture.