3 ms·
A two-party system is a side effect, the root problem is winner-take-all at the lower levels. If you have bigger districts that elect the top 3-4 candidates you
by jamie_ca 2y ago
A two-party system is a side effect, the root problem is winner-take-all at the lower levels. If you have bigger districts that elect the top 3-4 candidates you're more likely to see results of 3-1 or 2-1-1 than 4-0, and the 2-1-1 result being attainable is what allows for more parties reliably.
There's lots of ways to set up ballots and calculate support fallbacks, and they've all got tradeoffs, but they're nearly all strictly better than First Past The Post at electing a larger body (senate, congress, parliament, whatever).
- karmakurtisaani 2y agoYep, as I mentioned in another comment, the two-party system is not by law, but a side effect of a badly set up election scheme. I wonder if it was the intention of the founding fathers, as they were all wealthy land owners. Would they have wanted the workers to be able to set up their own party to compete against them successfully?
- illiac786 2y agoMy number recommendation is always: change the voting system to priority lists. Everyone has to list at least 2 candidates/parties, in order of preference, maybe more. That would immediately kick out extremists.