2 Party System Vs. 3+ Party System

[eagle_eye222001]

So I had an idea.

If you were to redo the political system, would you form it so that it would be set up inherently as a two-party system, or would you attempt to copy what other nations do, and set up the system to allow 3+ parties?


America is a great example of a two party system as it is a winner-take all scenario. However, if it was not a winner-take all, would that be better as a party that got 19% or so would be guaranteed a similar percentage spot in "Congress?"

[4588686]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1347260336' post='2480918']
So I had an idea.

If you were to redo the political system, would you form it so that it would be set up inherently as a two-party system, or would you attempt to copy what other nations do, and set up the system to allow 3+ parties?


America is a great example of a two party system as it is a winner-take all scenario. However, if it was not a winner-take all, would that be better as a party that got 19% or so would be guaranteed a similar percentage spot in "Congress?"
[/quote]

There's nothing that says that the system must involve only two parties. I wonder why we went there so quickly and have remained in a two party system for so long. I'm sure some game theorist somewhere has plotted out an answer to that question.

[Nihil Obstat]

I would go to neo-feudalism.

[Papist]

I don't know if people can handle hating another party.

[sixpence]

We do have a 3+ party system. It is just that 2 of them have become most popular (and polarized themselves). I would like to blame the people who refuse to vote for weaker parties on the basis that they probably cannot win. It becomes a game of "who do I absolutely NOT want to win" vs "who do I actually like".

Edited September 10, 2012 by sixpence

[BG45]

[quote name='sixpence' timestamp='1347306335' post='2481048']
We do have a 3+ party system. It is just that 2 of them have become most popular (and polarized themselves). I would like to blame the people who refuse to vote for weaker parties on the basis that they probably cannot win. It becomes a game of "who do I absolutely NOT want to win" vs "who do I actually like".
[/quote]

This, entirely this. We have dozens if not hundreds of political parties in America. However we've locked ourselves into this two party paradigm where anyone who announces they intend to vote for one of the "third" parties is belittled and that party is outspent by vast margins by the Big Two, who launch media offensives to discredit anyone who might be a threat.

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='sixpence' timestamp='1347306335' post='2481048']
We do have a 3+ party system. It is just that 2 of them have become most popular (and polarized themselves). I would like to blame the people who refuse to vote for weaker parties on the basis that they probably cannot win. It becomes a game of "who do I absolutely NOT want to win" vs "who do I actually like".
[/quote]

Actually we don't have a 3+ party system as I'll explain below. Although I definitively agree elections (especially the presidential elections of 2008, 2012, and 2016) tend to become a lot more of negation votes than positive votes.

[quote name='BG45' timestamp='1347307746' post='2481067']
This, entirely this. We have dozens if not hundreds of political parties in America. However we've locked ourselves into this two party paradigm where anyone who announces they intend to vote for one of the "third" parties is belittled and that party is outspent by vast margins by the Big Two, who launch media offensives to discredit anyone who might be a threat.
[/quote]

Not really.

America has an inherent two party system due to how our government is set up and has nothing to do with money.



The reason other nations have third parties that are more predominant than in America is due to the following example.

If a party in various countries in the world gets 20% of the vote, they get 20% representation. In America, if a third party gets 20% in an election, how much representation do they get? Zero. They lost. And the next election, they are eaten up by the major party that lost the previous election in an attempt to beat the other major party. Thus when a major party loses, they attempt to make the tent bigger and bigger to include more people. Every presidential election, we hear the endless analysis on who is getting the independent vote. Why is this? It is because both major parties fight to extend their tents to include just enough and capture the magic middle of the political spectrum.

America's elections are set up for winner take all. Due to this, America has an inherent two party system. We can never break out of this without radically changing the Constitution. If you look back into American history, there have always been two major parties. They have gone by different names, but by and large, America only has two predominant parties at any given time.

Now parties can go defunct and out of existence. but they are essentially replaced or reformed. There is never a real net increase or loss of the two parties.


My question is based on whether a different model of government would be better if it was set up to allow 2nd place representation? This would encourage the growth of third parties as opposed to our system that discourages third parties from growing.

I'm not advocating we switch necessarily, but I think it would be helpful to think of the advantages and disadvantages of each.

--------------

I apologize for not clarifying more.

[eagle_eye222001]

An example.


There is an election and 3 parties run. Party 1, party 2, and party 3.

Party 1 gets 45%
Party 2 gets 40%
Party 3 gets 15%

_____________________

In America, who wins? Party 1 wins with our winner take all method and parties 2 and 3 get NOTHING!

So what happens in between the next election? How is party 2 going to get to its goal of winning? Who do they need to convince to join them so they can win?

If Party 2 can incorporate party 3 into their party platform for the next election, then party 2 wins! And party 3 gets something as well as opposed to nothing. Basically party 3 was bought by party 2.

And the cycle continues. This is why there is no major third party in America. Winner take all leaves no incentive to be content with second place in an election. In other nations, second place may well get you some representation still.



Something to think about. I'm not convinced of other methods being that much better, but I thought it might be worthwhile to think of the pros and cons of such systems.
_____________


edited for clarity.

Edited September 10, 2012 by eagle_eye222001

[eagle_eye222001]

.

Edited September 10, 2012 by eagle_eye222001

[Groo the Wanderer]

Two parties: Orthodox Catholics and anti-God athiestic humanistic social relativists

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1347328963' post='2481180']
Two parties: Orthodox Catholics and anti-God athiestic humanistic social relativists
[/quote]

Fifty thousand parties:

Catholic Church, Baptist Church and thousands of off-shoots of it, the Methodist Church and the thousands of off-shoots of it, the Mennonite Church, the Mormon Church, the Jehovah's Witness Church, the Pentecostal Church and its thousands of off-shoots, the...

[Slappo]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1347336623' post='2481218']
Fifty thousand parties:

Catholic Church, Baptist ecclesial community [s]Church[/s] and thousands of off-shoots of it, the Methodist ecclesial community [s]Church[/s] and the thousands of off-shoots of it, the Mennonite ecclesial community [s]Church[/s], the Mormon [s]Church[/s], the Jehovah's Witness ecclesial community [s]Church[/s], the Pentecostal ecclesial community [s]Church[/s] and its thousands of off-shoots, the...
[/quote]

fixed

[Groo the Wanderer]

FP - they are denominations. Catholic and Orthodox are Churches (big C). Slappo slapped ya

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1347401640' post='2481473']
FP - they are denominations. Catholic and Orthodox are Churches (big C). Slappo slapped ya
[/quote]

Around here in the Bible Belt they are only known as Churches. I have never heard the distinction before.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1347419409' post='2481552']
Around here in the Bible Belt they are only known as Churches. I have never heard the distinction before.
[/quote]

The distinction, essentially, is that they do not have valid orders. It is a Catholic distinction, not a wider one.

Edited September 12, 2012 by Nihil Obstat