It is different in the UK, but mainly because when Labour (socialist at the time) took over from the Liberals after WW2, the Liberals (equivalent to the US Dems) stuck around to split the Labour vote and ensure regular Tory govts. That establishment glitch means that the UK has had a three party system under FPTP for 80 years or more.
i completely defer to your understanding british politics
my point is just to note the discrepancy in 3rd party stability and viability, uk vs usa
fptp means only 2 parties
people go "but the uk is fptp and they have lively 3rd parties"
and the reason for that is the parliamentary system counteracting some of poison that fptp represents for third parties
that the usa does not have
so in a way i'm hijacking your comment
typical americans, making it about them 😅
Edited 20d ago
Yep, FPTP is bipartite by nature and probably represents the lowest form of democracy that it's possible to have while still claiming to be a democracy.
The US system is a mirror of the UK system before the 1900s, with Republicans/Tories representing old money and tradition and the Dems/Liberals representing new money and more progressive ideals, but both parties born out of the aristocracy and the UK didn't have a left-wing opposition until the early C20.