A mufti-party system is great on text-book and endorses the idea of a true democracy. However, people dynamics do not reflect text book. People in general are known to be complacent people and make simple choices by choosing someone who is seemingly thinks as you do. As opposed to someone who challenges you and ask you to make sacrifices. Think of it as Ying and Yang. Keep it simple to either this or that. Or else too many choices can increase indecisiveness and creates complexity in policies that will affect the country's ambition to move forward.
I think our two-party system in the United States works just fine. I've never lived in a country with a multi-party system so I can't really compare the two effectively. I think in this country when we have more than two real candidates, one of the candidates usually takes away a lot more votes from one of the two main party candidates. The third party usually acts like a spoiler and usually has no chance of really winning.
While a multi-party does give voters more choices; it also gives small fringe groups the chance to gain power simply because they can be a more cohesive group. Which can, in all honesty, allow a small group with very radical ideas and theology to gain power because the majority of the votes would be divided among the more rational mainstream candidates.
Multi-party systems generally, but not always, increase the diversity of viable voices in the political dialogue, but one caveat is that crackpots and extremists that would be marginalized in the American system might well be viable in a multi-party system. One country that illustrates this is Israel. The Knesset has five viable political parties, with the dominant voice(s) changing on a regular basis. One way that minor parties gain more power in Israel is through the formation of coalition governments. If two larger parties lack the seats to control the government, then they will need to court the votes of smaller parties, which forces compromises on policy that wouldn't be possible otherwise. In contrast, with the American system, if you don't like the Democrats, your only real option is to vote Republican. A vote for a Libertarian or Green is effectively wasted.
A two-party system isn't intrinsically better, although until third parties become accepted by the mainstream, they don't often have a chance at the polls. But we've seen with the advent and increased popularity of diverse parties, ranging from the Green party to the Tea Party, that Americans may be ready to consider other alternatives. Especially so, when the current party front-runners so often fail to deliver on promises.
I don't particularly agree with a party system at all. In fact, when voting, I vote for the candidate I like based on what they say, what they have done, and how I feel about them. The two parties monopolize our government and take the decision making out of the hands of the majority and put it into the hands of the party. "Keeping the peace" is a form of decision making in congress and not the end results. Corruption is also rampant in the "party system".
One of the things that might have reduced Adolf Hitler's rise to power would have been a strong two party system. in 1928 there were at least five major political parties in Germany (and many smaller ones) and when the National Socialist German Workers party came into power the SDP stood as long as they could in resistance but with political opinion being split to the many parties there was not the real adversity to the Nazis that a strong two party system provides.
The two party system provides one more protection against extreme radicalism.
How about this - the party with the majority votes wins government - this is the WILL of the people. However the party with the second highest votes should take the opposition and all other parties should be
disallowed but their members could be offered seats in the successful two parties provided they agree on accepting their policies and joining the respective parties. Ministries should be trimmed to accomodate the number of new ministers. The problem of minority parties forming government would be eliminated and the WILL of the people would then not be compromised. I refer to the state of Tasmania and the mess it is in.
A two-party system is preferable to a multi-party system. Though there are cases where a multi-party system may outperform a two-party system do exist, the risk of a multi-party system failing is simply too great. A multi-party system can result in the kind of multi-party ineffectiveness that is conducive of radicalization and political parties like those that took power in Italy and Germany in World War II. Though a two-party system may be ineffective at times, the two entrenched and opposing yet ineffective parties are a better deal than a group of totalitarian crazy people.
The government and political party system is so corrupt, and the parties have no restrictions on their power! We need to balance the parties' power with extra political parties. We cannot keep allowing these candidates to do whatever the heck they want, and get away with it. Lastly, it will give us more choice.
The number of political parties makes no difference whatsoever to the quality of representatives elected. Just having more parties does not ensure a quality group of individuals. Nor does having just two parties ensure that those are the two best candidates for that position. Throughout history it has been shown that there is a need for a lively debate of issues, and if a multi-party system can achieve this aim I am certainly in favor of it.
Americans need more more than two choices of candidates. Two candidates from the two major parties provide limited views and ideas for solutions, whereas a multi-party system would provide more ideas and solutions. Also, many times people vote based on what party a candidate represents and a multi-partisan system would cause people to look further into the values of all candidates before making a decision, instead of voting based on that one party label.
We have two main parties, Democratic and Republican. However, these parties only accept a limited amount of views. Moderate Democrat and liberal Democrat. Moderate Republican, religious Republican, libertarian Republican, free-market Republican.
How about views not compatible with either the Democratic or Republican platforms?
There are many other parties. The Libertarian Party (which is more socially liberal than libertarian Republicans), the Green Party (an environmental social market/social democratic party), the Justice Party (advocates civil liberties and economic opportunity), the Constitution Party (strict traditionalism, constructionist, free-markets), etc.
These four parties, along with others, need to have a voice in Congress. They need to have a voice in our city councils, our state legislatures. And the executive branches at the local, state, and even Federal. Research all political parties, and side with the one you agree with. This is essential for our Democratic Republic.
Contention 1: Restricting choice to two parties limits the free marketplace of ideas, reduces each voter's choice, and is undemocratic.
People come in more than two flavors; reducing our choice to two is like having every American drive either a Dodge pickup or a Honda sedan. It is preposterous to think that the political rainbow can be summed up and represented properly by a bi-chromatic facsimile.
What if you are pro-life, but support gay marriage? Or, for that matter, what if you support the right to own assault rifles but also support nationalized health care? A two party system unnecessarily and arbitrarily forces people to make concessions on their beliefs, all in the name of simplicity.
The more parties, the better (to a degree, of course); it allows each citizen to find the party (and thusly, the candidate) that most directly fits their beliefs and best represents their ideology. Arbitrarily choosing two parties as being representative of all Americans is political favoritism and is wrong down the the very core.
Contention 2: There is no appropriate way to pick the two parties.
Even if you pick the two most popular parties, you still have a predicament... What if public opinion shifts, and the parties do not? I need not remind you that our two most dominant parties were themselves not established until well into the 1800s. Had we codified a two party system in our nation's infancy, we would today be choosing between the Democratic-Republicans or the Whigs.
Contention 3: A 3-or-more party system is more responsive to change.
If the public opinion should suddenly shift, or if events should lead to a rapid mood swing in the voting public, more parties would allow government to reflect this change with more fidelity.
Contention 4: At least in America, there is no Constitutional basis for a two party system.
Since the neither the Constitution nor any of it's amendments allows us to restrict political parties, permitting only two to exist would be illegal. So, for that matter, would be forcing us to have any arbitrary number (1, 5, 10, etc). We must allow freedom to determine how many parties there are, and it has; there are dozens of parties in this country. This is clear proof that an unrestricted, multi party system is best... It has arisen from free exchange and choice, and thus is a direct representation of the will of the people.
In a two party system, opinions and stances tend to get split down the middle. As a result a shift to the partisen extremes is inevitable in order to show the voters a stark contrast between the two parties. This has happened time and again in U.S. History and is going on at the very moment I'm typing this.
Simply look at our last few Presidential elections as an example. Sure, the Democrat and Republican bases were energized and passionate but what about the moderates or those who aren't registered with a party? They do make up more than 1/3 of the population after all. Essentially, they have been stuck with choosing between the "lesser of two evils" and that in itself is detrimental to any democratic system.
Right now the politicians have little accoutability in their actions. They can act the fool but still expect to be re-elected because he knows his base would still prefer him over the other guy. Now if there are at least 3 or 4 parties, the politicians would have to be more careful in what they say and choosing their stance because even if he has solid support in his base, a coalition of opposing voters could still boot him out of office easily.
A third or fourth party is badly needed in America and no, I don't mean the Tea Party. They are a monster, a mutation created by this toxic and partisen two-party system. They are a huge part of the problem as opposed to being a solution.
The most important facet of multi- party system is everyone is benefited with an equal opportunity to express his ideas and to practice his ideologies if he is not comfortable with the ideologies of either of the parties in the case of two party system. For instance,if I'm not okay with the system i can myself be the change ,but that's not the case in two party system...
All my life, Liberal and Labor have ruled Australia. Two powers controlling everything and has left the masses weak with no say where dirty deals with powerful corporate giants in their pockets forcing out small business leaving the masses powerless, robbing the farmer. For christs sakes we are fracking our land to sell gas to China and about to mine the Barrier Reef and you trying to tell me no independent parties did not try to stop that? So it is clean the system does not work.
Just look at the American congress, they get nothing done apart for being the laughing stock of the political world. It's not about what can be done, but all about how can we destroy the other side. Direct democracy would be the way to go, that would bring a healthy competition into politics.
The two parties have become more alike in character, more alike in their mistakes, yet more polarized in their camps, whilst voters have become more distanced. Diversity in choice of direction and action is largely lacking, making voters choose from among two bad options. Having more parties that are distinct means more choices presented, and then hopefully more centrism. A plurality of voters identify as "moderate" or "independent", yet there are rarely seen any "moderate" or "independent" candidates; worse yet, third-party candidates are seen as a waste of a vote and potentially detracting from voters' second-choice of party. Having to choose between voting for the party you want but that will not "count" and a party that will "count" but that you do not want creates a lose-lose situation, and is thus discouraging to a voter. Having an alternative method of voting (one that is not FPTP, for example), one that does not encourage a two-party system and that does not detract from voters' second-choice of party (spoiler effect), could alleviate these issues.
The American 2 party system is probably the absolute worst way to do this. With 1 party, you don't have the "Divided by party lines" but run into many many issues. A multi-party system allows for a full range of views to be expressed. Most people are not ideologically R or D (In fact upwards of 40% of the population identifies ideologically [Ideals, not party] libertarian for example. Even with the increased accountability and choice that a multi-party system would bring, the only system that allows for true freedom is An-Cap/Voluntarism, but most people are not ready for that, as it requires living and taking responsibility for your actions, and is free of entitlement and government intrusion.