From Ballot Access News:
The Sunday New York Times for December 15 has this dialogue in the Sunday Review, on whether the U.S. would be better off with a multi-party system.
From the article cited:
The two-party system has become a curse. It is responsible for a destructive polarization of American society and government. Neither Democrats nor Republicans seem to have the courage to shed their extreme wings. If they did, the resulting multiparty system would be a blessing.
A real Tea Party, for instance, would be forced to develop a feasible program when facing elections, and social democratic or socialist parties would have to openly justify expensive social welfare programs. Americans would have a better choice among streamlined moderate core parties and specific programs on the environment, social welfare and the size of government.
Transparent political negotiations and coalitions would produce compromise and prevent irrational and costly breakdowns like the recent government shutdown.
Even after ballot access is overcome, voting still trends towards the either/or scenario in the American system.
gp: Now there are a moderate number of Republicans who are not Christian Nationalists, mostly in leadership roles so they appear more numerous, and their number is fading.
me: Evidence, please.
Some countries with single plurality districts, even the US in the past, have stronger alternative parties. Ballot access barriers are to blame among other things.
Single plurality districts . . . Madison hated the English factions.
Well put DWP!
I submitted this response to the NYT:
As the author of Duopoly: How the Republicrats Control the Electoral Process, I am inclined to agree with the author of the recent LTE titled, “Invitation to a Dialogue: A Multiparty System.” However, he leaves out the important step of how a multi-party system would come about. The letter writer seems to believe that a multi-party system would just happen if the “extremist” leave the two major parties. One needs to ask: why do they remain in the two major parties?
The answer lies in the fact that the two major parties have granted themselves ballot access, and placed entry barriers in front of the smaller parties. If one looks at Canada, you will see a country with with the same ballot access requirements for all parties, and a country that has elected representatives to the House of Commons from at least five parties in every election since 1993.
If there is to be a multi-party system in the US, there first needs to be fair ballot access. After that, hopefully, voters will get out of their “lesser of two evils” voting habit!
From the article cited:
“The two-party system has become a curse. It is responsible for a destructive polarization of American society and government.”
The “two-party system” is DEFINITELY a curse, but NOT for the reason cite. In fact, if the two parties HAD become “polarized”, it would offer a great opportunity for a rational, balanced political party to rise to power.
The two major parties are as different as 1% low-fat milk and 2% low-fat milk, each claiming that the other is NON-fat milk or whole milk.
What little bit of polarized “rhetoric” one finds in those parties is simply a device to keep their more “principled” components in check.
The Republican Party is doing what the article says, but not in the direction its liberal author wants. They are shedding their non tea party wings, 50 years ago, there actually were liberals who were Republicans. Now there are a moderate number of Republicans who are not Christian Nationalists, mostly in leadership roles so they appear more numerous, and their number is fading.