If we allow a 2+ party system it will only crate more havoc in the voting system. If the people are tired of listening to 2 different candidates for 18 months, imagine listening to 10 or 20. Also, you would usually have 3 candidates supporting the same thing. That makes it harder for people to decide who they want for the position that they are vying for.
Think of American political parties as a pie graph. The more sections you have, the less in each section. So if there were to be let's say... Fourteen political parties, that would mean the majority to win the popular vote would be a fourteenth of the population, meaning more people would be against the decisions of that party than for it.
Look, im a republican and what is great about this country is its ability to have different sides on issues. Not just everyone thinking one thing and no one opposing it. Think how boring that would be if debates went like this "Hey i heard about that new law fellow demublican, do you agree?""yes i do""good"
The two party system is counter beneficial to America, there is no compromise any more and politicians are forced to comply to the extreme policy of their leaders in the party, an example is before running for president Romney actually supported some moderate gun control while during the campaign he switched his position so he could win the primaries, the parties prevent compromise and give people only two extreme choices in the election. And even if there are a better 3rd party voting for them is against r your better interests
The elections in the U.S. Has come to choosing between the shiniest of two turds. There is hardly any choice for a lot of people, because everyone has their own beliefs and values. Having more than two parties would increase the total count of votes because each party has to mediate between issues, and if there were more dedicated parties (for example a Green Party, for the environmental tree huggers) then there would be less compromise for the voter.
The current system operates on the idea that in our country everyone has either "a" set of ideals or "b" set of ideals. This of course isn't true, and so our representatives that we elect to represent us cannot make decisions based on their beliefs as we would like them to, but rather the policy of their party. Barely anyone fully supports every policy of their designated party and yet it is those policies that go head to head with eachother and result in countless stand offs that are the reason for the stereotype of our inneficent government. Why do we let these parties bog down our government even though we don't fully support them?
2 choices is not enough, as the recent government shutdown showed us the other party can basically rule the country if they have a majority in the Congress or Senate. It causes to much problems and in the UK there is no one party in charge it is a coalition government and at the moment there are 4 main countries this is a proper democracy 2 main countries just causes problems and shouldn't be allowed in the western world.
The United States of America is more polarized than any other time in her history since the civil war. We have the Democrats and the Republicans, who seemingly can't seem to see eye to eye on anything, and I doubt many of us really fall into these two parties. Do you maybe vote one way because you hate one parties policies more than the other, do you even like the policies of the party you voted for. Would you vote for another party that better fit your own personal politics if such option were viable. Lets face it, the two party system is broke, you may be a fiscal conservative, but progressive of social issues, you may love big government, you may wish for state rights. Each of us is different, we have different desires, personalities, core values and to me the idea of trying to narrow everyone down to two broad choices which we might not actually support is absurd. The two party system weakens the importance of your vote, it creates such polarity that compromise is rarely possible. The people need a greater voice in government and that is not going to happen under a two party system.
I don't when the tipping point was but it's been building for decades. Government is no longer about the people it's a money grab at the top and the bottom, middle (and I mean 95% of people) are not being represented. This fall on both sides of the aisle and anyone that thinks otherwise is not part of the 95% or is simply not very smart.
I would like to see one of two things happen: Either we get rid of the GOP and modify the Democratic Party and let them rule under one set of principles for us all to follow, or let a third part have an even playing field. I'd be cool with the Green Party or even The Libertarian Party. If we must have the two party system, or a three-party system for that matter, we have to overturn Citizens United. The whole reason it's just the Dems and the Reps every year is because both parties are funded by huge corporations, whereas every other party gets the shaft because they're seen as "too radical"(not an unfair assessment of some in the Libertarian Party). Unless and until that happens though, one party is the way to go.
Anyone can form a political party in the United States. A two-party system limits choices in the United States, even though a two-party system is a misnomer. We do have the Green Party, Libertarians and the Constitution Party on ballots all the time. The difficulty is there are two mainstream parties--Democrats and Republicans. In order to get anywhere, politicians need to belong to one of those two sides. Two majority parties limit the choices of people who run for office as independent candidates must go to extraordinary lengths to get on a ballot.
Political parties have always divided the nation. They are the reason George Washington did not seek a political party. He saw them as the downfall of the nation. Indeed this proved itself during the Civil War. When people allign to one party, they will make a terrible voting decision because they will continue voting for that party member, no matter how terrible a leader they would make.
The two options present are much more similar than they are different. They are both right wing parties who serve corporate interests over those of the people, and even collaborate in making sure the duopoly is not ended. Many more parties would be needed for a republic to even vaguely represent the needs of its people.