I broke my political compass

[Speaker to Animals]

I don't see why.. Do you think that societies are stronger when united in a single, strong vision of leadership? Perhaps with a charismatic, "Man of the People" to lead them?

Yes. Demonstrably so. The danger in one-party rule, however, is that it becomes a kind of tyranny. The more factions, the less likely any one faction will be able to consolidate enough power to create something like that. But the more factions you have, the more fractious the government, and the more divided and combative the demos.

When you see a multiplication of political parties in a democratic republic of some kind, watch out. Look at our 1860s as one example. Germany in the 1920s as another..

In your opinion, in principle, what number of distinct parties strikes the best balance? 2, 4-6, 7-10?

I realize voting systems tend to force the divisional lines (FPTP=2 party), so I'm not sure if there's a independent answer without mucking through that mess...

I don't know if there exists a good answer to that. For us, right now, the answer seems to be two. It's been that way for a long time, possibly an artifact of American culture and the way our federal government is designed. But even then.. our two-party system extends even to state and local levels, so it might be something more cultural. Whenever American politics saw a multiplication of parties, major conflicts loomed on the horizon. The Civil War saw something like five different political parties, with democrats and whigs splitting on regional cultural differences, and the GOP entering as a third party. Before the world wars and Great Depression, we saw a few parties come and make a strong showing. Unless something is drastically wrong with the electorate, it should be very difficult for a third party to simply setup shop and compete for votes. We saw that with the Independent Party and the Green Party. Libertarian party is another example, though they mostly always were a joke party.

In any case, if our two parties suddenly multiply, I would be very watchful of how things go down from there. It's inherently unstable and such a division belies nonstandard divisions in the electorate that would cause entire political parties to fracture at all.

[adwinistrator]

Yes. Demonstrably so. The danger in one-party rule, however, is that it becomes a kind of tyranny. The more factions, the less likely any one faction will be able to consolidate enough power to create something like that. But the more factions you have, the more fractious the government, and the more divided and combative the demos.

When you see a multiplication of political parties in a democratic republic of some kind, watch out. Look at our 1860s as one example. Germany in the 1920s as another..

In your opinion, in principle, what number of distinct parties strikes the best balance? 2, 4-6, 7-10?

I realize voting systems tend to force the divisional lines (FPTP=2 party), so I'm not sure if there's a independent answer without mucking through that mess...

I don't know if there exists a good answer to that. For us, right now, the answer seems to be two. It's been that way for a long time, possibly an artifact of American culture and the way our federal government is designed. But even then.. our two-party system extends even to state and local levels, so it might be something more cultural. Whenever American politics saw a multiplication of parties, major conflicts loomed on the horizon. The Civil War saw something like five different political parties, with democrats and whigs splitting on regional cultural differences, and the GOP entering as a third party. Before the world wars and Great Depression, we saw a few parties come and make a strong showing. Unless something is drastically wrong with the electorate, it should be very difficult for a third party to simply setup shop and compete for votes. We saw that with the Independent Party and the Green Party. Libertarian party is another example, though they mostly always were a joke party.

In any case, if our two parties suddenly multiply, I would be very watchful of how things go down from there. It's inherently unstable and such a division belies nonstandard divisions in the electorate that would cause entire political parties to fracture at all.

Sounds about right to me, for the system as it exists.

The reason we see consolidation into 2 parties in America is due to the effects of "first past the post" election systems. The basic voting strategy will always be to consolidate with those closest to you to defend against a majority from others consolidating.

Instant runoff voting, also called ranked choice voting, would allow for more unique parties to remain established, as you could vote for your preferred candidate first, and a strategic candidate last. If your preferred candidate doesn't win, your vote goes to your second choice, and there's no loss of strategy in the bigger picture.

allowing 2 ranked picks, or 3 ranked picks, could produce the balance on stable number of parties (where strategy of # of votes forces some consolidation).

[Speaker to Animals]

In your opinion, in principle, what number of distinct parties strikes the best balance? 2, 4-6, 7-10?

I realize voting systems tend to force the divisional lines (FPTP=2 party), so I'm not sure if there's a independent answer without mucking through that mess...

I don't know if there exists a good answer to that. For us, right now, the answer seems to be two. It's been that way for a long time, possibly an artifact of American culture and the way our federal government is designed. But even then.. our two-party system extends even to state and local levels, so it might be something more cultural. Whenever American politics saw a multiplication of parties, major conflicts loomed on the horizon. The Civil War saw something like five different political parties, with democrats and whigs splitting on regional cultural differences, and the GOP entering as a third party. Before the world wars and Great Depression, we saw a few parties come and make a strong showing. Unless something is drastically wrong with the electorate, it should be very difficult for a third party to simply setup shop and compete for votes. We saw that with the Independent Party and the Green Party. Libertarian party is another example, though they mostly always were a joke party.

In any case, if our two parties suddenly multiply, I would be very watchful of how things go down from there. It's inherently unstable and such a division belies nonstandard divisions in the electorate that would cause entire political parties to fracture at all.

Sounds about right to me, for the system as it exists.

The reason we see consolidation into 2 parties in America is due to the effects of "first past the post" election systems. The basic voting strategy will always be to consolidate with those closest to you to defend against a majority from others consolidating.

Instant runoff voting, also called ranked choice voting, would allow for more unique parties to remain established, as you could vote for your preferred candidate first, and a strategic candidate last. If your preferred candidate doesn't win, your vote goes to your second choice, and there's no loss of strategy in the bigger picture.

allowing 2 ranked picks, or 3 ranked picks, could produce the balance on stable number of parties (where strategy of # of votes forces some consolidation).

While those systems look good on paper, I personally think a nation like ours would be ill-served by it. Two parties work pretty well.

In any case, the kinds of dealing and coalition-building that happen in more parliamentarian governments happen here too, but they happen at the electorate level. We saw that in the previous election with the working class leaving the democratic party tent for the republican party tent. I think our system actually works better.

And as far as the arguments about how the system locks out people who are not establishment.. that argument was just nullified.