That's what I mean. I'll take "deadlock" or "tyranny" as exaggerations for emphasis. "Tyranny" isn't more or less likely with multi-party. In recent times, a

That's what I mean. I'll take "deadlock" or "tyranny" as exaggerations for emphasis. "Tyranny" isn't more or less likely with multi-party. In recent times, a lot of democracies have move to increasingly smaller large parties. But historically, a lot of parliaments have had parties with >51% or parliament... equivalent to having house+senate+presidency, with less opportunity for defection... and mostly under weaker supreme courts. "Deadlock" works differently in parliamentary systems but... generally tend to be more deadlocked. That's why parliamentary systems often have so many early elections. Deadlock is (assumed to be) absolute. This is way more common where small parties predominate. Im not arguing that either is better, just that patterns emerge and repeat under all the electoral systems currently used. Transferable votes, multi-stage elections, regional electorates, proportional, vote-for-party, vote-for-candidate, etc. None seem particularly "better" for producing outcomes. Party political patterns conform to whatever habitat they exist in.