I heard a good argument against multi party systems.

[Smith_3]

I was having this discussion the other day about the pros and cons of our election system with "Winner takes it all" versus the systems of many European countries where parties form coalitions. I started with the statement that I think that multi-party systems are better because they reflect the people's will better. The counterargument was that countries with single majority systems, like the USA and Great Britain have had stable democracies for centuries while other countries like France and Germany have been through several failed Republics already. So now I don't know. Is the two party system perhaps better at dampening extremes? I mean we had a pretty bad eight years now, but that is to a large part to blame on idiots who voted for these people, and unlike what some expected, it did end peacefully with an election.

[Mythsaje]

1. I don't know... maybe the failed republics

are a sign of growing pains--that it takes a while for such a system to stabilize itself. One thing is that the U.S. would probably be limited to less than five or six viable parties for the time being, should it move to that sort of a system, and it would take a while for a real problem to develop.

[Smith_3]

2. Germany has five viable parties now.

And my observation is that this is pretty close to the limit. I don't think a sixth one will emerge any time soon, simply because of "market saturation". Most opinions are already represented by one of these parties.

[Mythsaje]

4. Yeah, that makes sense... n/t

[lapfog_1]

3. The problem with coalition governments

is that too much power has to be given to extremist parties in order to form the coalition.

Disproportionate to their actual support with the people or even their "vote".

The Problem with "winner take all" is that any minority (even significant ones) feel shut out of the political system.

Every "district" might be 52 - 48 for party X, yet X is the only party given any power by virtue of the election.

Neither method is good... and I don't have a solution in my hip pocket.

[zipplewrath]

5. There are many

Of course that doesn't make them right. But I tend to object to the concept that we have only "two" parties. Even in countries that officially have multiple parties, it's usually 2 dominant, with a third consistent distant, and then a few more that barely keep any organized structure.

The US has many "parties" it's just that the structure of our government requires the "coalition building" in our "primary" system. Plus, since anyone can run on any "ticket" they want, the real nature of our system is that parties get moved left and right by the local and state politicians that build constituencies of their own. A democrat in California is much different than one in Kansas. A member of the GOP in NYC is vastly different than one in Idaho. The democratic party got moved right by the DLC and Clinton. It didn't do that because the national party decided they needed to move right, it happened because some people in a "party" called the DLC won elections. In most parliamentary systems, a guy like Obama could NEVER rise as fast as he did. The party structure wouldn't particularly "allow" it. A desperate party might choose to advance a charismatic candidate like him, but probably not one with as little time in party at the national level.

Don't kid yourself, we have alot of parties. There's the labor unions, the NRA, there was the "moral majority", you have both the Log Cabin Republicans and the Human Rights Campaign. We just build our coalitions outside of government. Which in a strange way is the manner in which it was intended. The stem is designed to declare winners, even minority or plurality winners. No power vacuums. More importantly it encourages participation (well, in a legislative sense). The system will move on without you if you let it, or if you stay engaged, you can continue to influence it even while you may not control it. Too many parliamentary systems encourage or empower folks who choose to "do nothing" as a way of demanding their participation. And as been pointed out, the tendency of that is to expand their power beyond any reasonable extrapolation of their representation.

[mmonk]

6. I don't see us as particularly stable right now.

We have government officials that break the law with prejudice I might add, that are no longer subject to the law. That alone in its context is foreign to stability in the sense of democracy.

[The2ndWheel]

7. Just compare it to the health care debate

The multi-party system would be closer to the current insurance based system we have now. The two party winner-take-all system would be closer to the universal/single payer health care.

The ultimate goal would be to have a single party that was inclusive of everything possible. The same way the goal is to have mass transportation, where many people ride on a single train/bus/whatever, instead of wasting energy riding in individual cars. The goal is to have universal/single payer health care, where everyone pays into the same system, instead of multiple private insurance companies. The most efficient number is one, so once you have two or more of something, the conflict that is bound to happen between two or more entities, whatever they may be, is just going to waste time, money, and energy.

[SidDithers]

8. Canada has 5 (major) federal parties...

4 of which are represented in Parliament. We're pretty stable.

Sid

Edit: Didn't think I could screw up spelling in a 1 line post, didja?

[asteroid2003QQ47]

9. It's painfully obvious the corporatist (1 party) system doesn't work for the majority, so...

what's the worst that can happen if coalition is tried?