[Quoting myself from another source:] Worth noting, in both national and international politics, is how spoils are divided. Now, spoils are simply plunder or loot -- something accessible to one or more parties for the taking, as the treasury of the United States of America for the two major political parties. Got that? Good. Now let's play numbers. If there's but a single party involved, the division of the spoils is not in doubt. The winner takes all. When there are two equal parties, bargaining can take place, and a division of roughly 50% to each is the probable ultimate outcome. Things get far more interesting when there are three parties, though. Consider the US, Russia and China. The situation is unstable, with no agreeable division. Should, say, Party #1 suggest division into thirds, Party #2 can suggest to the Party #3 that they split 50/50, freezing out Party #1. You can take it from there. Perhaps you will also come to the conclusion that a third strong party in US politics would not solve very much. Regards, stay safe 'n well.
A teacher once gave each of her pupils a map of the world cut up into puzzle pieces and asked them to assemble the world correctly. All the students started to work, making slow progress fitting each of the world pieces together, but after a few minutes one girl said she was done. The teacher was very surprised and asked how she was able to do it so quickly and the girl replied it was easy- there was a drawing of a man on the back of the map pieces and when she put the man together, the world also came together. I don't think having more political parties is going to help the divisions. Look at Israel.
I tend to disagree with the assumptions. A third party would make it more difficult for there to be spoils to be had to begin with. Forcing people to make rational decisions instead of partisan ones will never come about in a two party system
