From an Italian perspective, what's odd in the American political system is that it's ... frozen. There are only two parties with realistic possibilities to get the power. And it's almost impossible that a new third party gains enough representatives to become significant. Even in UK this is not the rule [they have known, and they know, "coalition governments"]. I'm not going to talk about Italy: here we invent some new parties every year [!!]. This is a bit too much. But I'm wondering: can the US immobile two parties system a reason why the American political environment is so ... polarized and extreme? If the GOP or the Democrat Party needs even just 10 votes to win ... why not to involve also extremists [Fascists or Communists, to make it simple] in the life of the party? In a proportional system this risk doesn't exist. What do you think [from a perspective of political science] about this?
Parties are bad. But if we're going to have them, two is the least bad number to have. One party just results in straight up authoritarianism, like the Nazi Party or the Communist Party. More than two and they either start teaming up to create a dominance that isn't meaningfully different from a one party system, or support gets so diluted that none of them can affect meaningful representation. People already understand this (even if they don't realize it) and its why they don't 'waste their vote' on a third party. Ideally we'd vote for each candidate based on their platform and record and completely ignore what the parties say. But since we won't, the two party system is the next best (least worst) thing. Its not good, mind you. Just less terrible.
It's because the two US political parties are not really political parties like you have in Europe; they are coalitions. In Europe, you vote, and after the election you see what sort of coalition you are going to get as the parties bargain and haggle. In the US, you are straight up voting for the coalition. The "parties" are not static; their positions and voters are in constant flux, other than one party is generally right and the other is generally left.
I'm not convinced. Political parties cause issues when they have power rather than by their pure existence and having several parties dilutes that power. It means government policies generally need the support of more than just the governing party (though not always the same ones), tempering more extreme or politically motivated policies. Long term coalitions can end up acting a lot like a single party but they can still be easily broken in extreme cases, especially if that is the lead from their individual supporters and voters. Of course, the existence of additional political parties isn't the only factor that is different (after all, the US does have several other parties, they're just intentionally excluded from mainstream political processes). The workings of government and the approaches of voters are significantly different in multi-party systems. I honestly think it would be better for the US but I've no idea how such a transition could be made, especially since none of the current decision makers have any interest in doing it.
I vote libertarian or Green Party when I can and they have someone who isn't a complete nutcase on my ballot. The Greens are hit and miss on getting on the ballot around here. The libertarians are almost always there but somehow seem to find a nominee with two extra chromosomes.
The point is the system. American system makes it sure that there will a functioning government. Also in Italy we are thinking to move towards a similar system. The problem is that it becomes immobile. You can have the best political idea ever, but to enter the Congress you will have to join the GOP or the Democratic Party. Why? For example, when I begun to support Trump ... a lot of Reps didn't consider him a Republican, but he had to win the Republican primary elections to run for the Presidency. Why? It's like about Elon: he's got many millions and probably he will send some astronauts to the Moon and to Mars well before of NASA. Btw ... Artemis first mission has been cancelled. That's not a great start!
Regarding the >2 party first point, there is actually another difference. Sure, for things to get done, parties are likely to team up and form governing coalitions, but the difference is that those coalitions, as well as the results that come out of them, are likely to be more moderate and measured when there are >2 parties, at least when comparing them to the sort of team ups that we (the U.S.) tend to see under our current system... a system in which extremes are much more likely to reign instead due to the general lack of any need for seeking any sort of overlap. And certainly they wouldn't be comparable to one-party authoritarianism. You see... one of those things requires and rewards compromise. The other subjugates opposing opinions with dictatorial authority. But anyways, on the subject of how people vote; well of course most people aren't going to waste their votes on the average third-party candidate under a Plurality system like ours in which such votes are effectively and systematically punished due to things like the spoiler effect. But I would tend to think that any so-called >2 multi-party system would be one that was set up with multiple >2 parties in-mind, and that as such would address things like the spoiler effect and other attributes that tend to block third-parties from competing on even ground with more established parties. I agree, that would be the ideal. It's apparently what George Washington wanted too. But a two party system isn't really a consolation prize to that, because its the two-party system itself that leads to most of the party politics over policy in the first place. That isn't to say party loyalty would suddenly be a thing of the past under a more than two party system, but it does become a lot easier for voters and politicians alike to make decisions based on policy specifics when the number of parties (particularly the middle-of the road ones) becomes high enough that drawing a clear line between you and "the other parties" becomes difficult to do without putting in some real thought on what each of the parties' policies actually are. -Meta
