A to C, B is missing.

[dsrtao]

A: We have two political parties in the US. This leads to us-vs-them, poor compromises, and fewer viewpoints being heard in public. Many issues are bundled up together even though they have no coherent underlying philosophy.

C: We could have a dozen or so parties, each with a better philosophical grounding. Parties could afford not to have positions on some things when other issues are more important to them. Coalitions would be negotiated. More people would have better public airings of their positions.


The problem is B, the transition from A to C. If one major party fragments, the other immediately has an advantage. So they must both fragment simultaneously, or at least in a window of less than a year -- probably less than six months. Advantages in more general elections accrue to larger parties. It might be that there is no way to move from A to C without incurring temporary disadvantages so great that no semi-rational actor would willingly incur them.

Comments

[siderea]

This reminds me of the plot of Tigana.

[robertdfeinman.livejournal.com]

If a third party forms from the discontented in both existing parties (or from independents) and it draws the deciding votes away then a change is possible without the existing parties changing substantially.

Most laws and rules in congress are designed to handicap a third party which is why no lasting one has ever emerged.

Countries which have third parties don't actually manage to govern better, both Canada and the UK are good examples. Having many parties really won't work in a presidential system, it requires a parliamentary government where votes of no confidence can force a new election.

Some other examples are more fun!

[be-well-lowell.livejournal.com]

Not to mention Israel and Italy...

[alexx-kay.livejournal.com]

"Countries which have third parties don't actually manage to govern better"

Define "better". They don't govern as *efficiently*, that I will readily grant. But I tend to believe that "that government is best which governs least", and inefficiency is one of the most practical ways to make that happen.

[robertdfeinman.livejournal.com]

You can wish for minimal government all you like, but no modern society is going to go back to that type of laissez faire society - regardless of what they claim to be doing.

So, given that government is here to stay and that government will continue to get bigger the real question is how to make it do what is needed?

Hoping for legislative gridlock in the belief that doing nothing is to be preferred is pointless. All that happens is that other forces determine the course of society, and since these forces are not under democratic control, special interests win out instead.

Countries like Italy have had 40 years of substandard economic development because of gridlock. Israel has had a frozen foreign policy because the left and right parties can thwart reaching a consensus and have done so.

What's needed is better democratic control by the people, not less.

[alexx-kay.livejournal.com]

"the real question is how to make it do what is needed?"

I agree that that is *an* important question. But I think an equally important one is "how to *prevent* it from doing what is *evil*." Multi-party countries seem to be a lot less likely to engage in foreign wars, for just one relevant example. There are far worse kinds of foreign policy than 'frozen' ones.

[robertdfeinman.livejournal.com]

Without getting into the "right and wrong" of the situation, the gridlock in Israel hasn't stopped it from engaging in a succession of conflicts with its neighbors.

Several states (like Italy) just don't have the wherewithal to invade countries as they did when they were a colonial power.

The reason the US government has been doing bad things for several decades is because our democratic institutions are not working properly. The wealthy have too much influence in the legislative process, they buy candidates by providing funds for campaigns and they influence public opinion by owning the mass media and many biased "think tanks".

If we had more clearly defined classes in this country multi-parties might make sense. As it is we have the WASP (white anglo-saxon protestant) party and the other party. Would things be better if we had an explicit black party or a Hispanic party? The problem is that the GOP masquerades as a party representing everyone, but doesn't.

Multi parties may be good or bad, it's not clear. What is clear is that having money vote instead of people isn't the way to get good government.