When only 2 parties take turns ruling the country, the checks and balances don’t really work well when stressed. Because the party that needs to be checked, control half the apparatus, and can disrupt large parts of the other half.
Countries with maybe 10+ parties in parlament like many European countries have, will never have a single party with control of half the apparatus responsible for the checks and balances.
This is a huge reason first past the post is bad for democracy, apart from also not representing the population as fairly as is possible with numerous parties of influence.
This problem permeates throughout the entirety of the system, including the judicial, where judges belong to one or the other party, enabling an imbalance with total control for one party in for instance the supreme court.
With a multi party system, a single party would NOT be able to take control in the way we have seen happen in USA, which obviously shouldn’t be possible, and also doesn’t help to prevent corruption.
Do you know how many parties had members in the parliament of the Weimar Republic when Hitler was named Chancellor?
I learned in school – not sure if this part is entirely accurate but its an interesting idea anyway – that this situation was precisely why there is a ~5% of votes, lower barrier for parties sending representatives in many modern European democracies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_threshold
Four states don’t use first-past-the-post for legislative elections. In particular:
Alaska - uses a top-4 primary + ranked choice general
Maine - uses ranked choice voting
California & Washington - use top-two primaries (note: CA can be top-3 if there is a tie for 2nd place)
If a third party wanted to succeed, they would put significant resources into winning legislative and congressional seats in those places. I don’t see any of them actually doing that though.
Mostly because the progressives didn’t control them in the early 1900s, so they don’t have legislature-bypassing initiatives, and even in states where you do have that, it’s expensive to get one through.
Probably not, they have a nice cozy arrangement where they share the power. To allow multiple parties would mean to give that up, and most likely neither side is really interested in that.
When only 2 parties take turns ruling the country, the checks and balances don’t really work well when stressed. Because the party that needs to be checked, control half the apparatus, and can disrupt large parts of the other half.
Countries with maybe 10+ parties in parlament like many European countries have, will never have a single party with control of half the apparatus responsible for the checks and balances.
This is a huge reason first past the post is bad for democracy, apart from also not representing the population as fairly as is possible with numerous parties of influence.
This problem permeates throughout the entirety of the system, including the judicial, where judges belong to one or the other party, enabling an imbalance with total control for one party in for instance the supreme court.
With a multi party system, a single party would NOT be able to take control in the way we have seen happen in USA, which obviously shouldn’t be possible, and also doesn’t help to prevent corruption.
Do you know how many parties had members in the parliament of the Weimar Republic when Hitler was named Chancellor?
I learned in school – not sure if this part is entirely accurate but its an interesting idea anyway – that this situation was precisely why there is a ~5% of votes, lower barrier for parties sending representatives in many modern European democracies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_threshold
No I didn’t, that’s very interesting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_political_parties
What I don’t get is, how Hitler managed to take control with that many parties? He should not have been in a position with power to do that?
I would love to be able to vote for a true leftist party in America. They will never allow it though.
Four states don’t use first-past-the-post for legislative elections. In particular:
If a third party wanted to succeed, they would put significant resources into winning legislative and congressional seats in those places. I don’t see any of them actually doing that though.
They’re not designed to win, they’re designed to offset whoever they’re turned against.
Why don’t more states abandon first-past-the-post?
Massachusetts tried last time and the ballot initiative failed.
Mostly because the progressives didn’t control them in the early 1900s, so they don’t have legislature-bypassing initiatives, and even in states where you do have that, it’s expensive to get one through.
So disappointing. I feel like things will never change.
Political change tends to be like that — nothing at all for a long period when you don’t have the power to act, and sudden rapid change when you do.
It feels like we’re on the cusp of something big happening, for better or for worse.
On the upside they could change for the worse. Maybe instead of fair elections the chang is a god king
Probably not, they have a nice cozy arrangement where they share the power. To allow multiple parties would mean to give that up, and most likely neither side is really interested in that.