One thing--this thread is on a 3-Party system, mainly...

You can argue that maybe with many parties things might be better or worse, but for now, nothing beyond 3 is really even plausible, and even 3 could be problematic.

So, taking just a 3-party system...what would change?

We'd still have politicians acting on behalf of lobbyists and constituents...
We'd still have "safe states" for the GOP and Dems...
We'd still have a LOT of "safe seats" in the House and Senate...

So what's the intrinsic benefit of another party--more choice?

You could argue the GOP has plenty of room for "choice" in its fractured base between the Religious Right, Libertarian Right and Tea Party Right...

And then to be fair there are varying degrees of "Left-ness" when it comes to the Democratic party...

How would a third option solve Washington's gridlock woes?

The best argument I've heard is that if the Congressional seats somehow went into 3rds (that is, 1/3 for the Dems, 1/3 for the GOP, and 1/3 for Party X) it'd force more compromise since no party would then have a majority.

But do we really expect a new 3rd party to gain THAT much power and those many seats? And even if they did, what if it's just a 3-way budget standoff next time (which is arguably what we had this time between the Democrats, Moderate Republicans and Ted Cruz-led Republican sect.)

^

Three parties aren't better than two. Make it at least 7-8 different parties, and you can get them working on the most pressing issue in their opinion, rather then on big, faceless ideologies.

Ninja'd. My answer came in before obiwan's post. I'll just get going now.

The way our congress works, it would be very difficult to institute a three party system. You'd need to change election rules so the government would look more like a parliament than a congress. And getting either political party to support that kind of reform would be VERY difficult, and there is no guarantee it would solve the deadlock. In my opinion, the problem isn't the system, or the parties, they have worked for years. The problem is that we've lost sight of compromise and the role that plays in our legislation.

It would depend on where the third party was positioned. To expand on what Semck says, in which I think he is largely correct:

- If the third party was somewhat similar to the Republicans (for example if the "tea party" branch of the Republican party split off and formed a new party of their own) it would largely split votes off from the Republicans, much as UKIP is now threatening to do to the Conservatives in the UK. The net effect of this would be to hand the Democrats a huge head start in any election contested by the three parties.

- If the third party was somewhat similar to the Democrats (ladies and gentlemen, please give a big hand to our guest, Mr. Ralph Nader) the opposite would be the case, splitting the traditional Democrat vote and giving an electoral advantage to the Republicans (as indeed Nader was accused of doing in the 2000 US Presidential Election).

Now, perhaps there is a third scenario, where the new party would somehow be able to radically appeal to some other constituency than traditional democrats or republicans - perhaps appealing instead to the 40 - 50% of voting age Americans who do not currently vote. That doesn't seem likely, mind you.

I think 3 parties is worse than 2 parties, but I think there should be any number of parties allowed in the US. Why can't everyone be properly represented over there? Every party gets a weighted vote on who becomes president for example. Why not?

Oh, and if 3 parties, there should be 2 rounds IMO. So Democrats or Republicans don't get a disadvantage, as explained earlier...

Two rounds? Explain, steephie?

it would be worse for webdip. Then there would be three camps of arguments instead of two

Krellin would have twice as many people opposed to him

@ steephie: Any number of parties *is* allowed in the US. There is no law prohibiting other parties from forming, or standing for election. There *are* other parties, too, such as the Green Party. The problem is not the formation of additional political parties, per se, rather that the two main parties are very well established and both have huge corporate financial backing, making it hard for smaller parties to compete with them for the voting public's attention.

It's not even that they have huge corporate financial backing. It's that it's completely counerproductive and insane to vote for a third party in the US, because you just make it more likely your preferred party will lose. It's nothing to do with finance or corruption -- it's just a corollary of the system's structure. Of course, yes, it's true that it's THOSE two parties because of historical entrenchment. But it was going to be some two parties.

The three-party system would force each party to keep their act together for fear of getting thrown out of the shuffle. Both Democrats and Republicans can safely assume they'll get reelected right now and so they really aren't doing their job. A third party, even if it's an extreme party one way or the other, would help. It's not a solution though.

There's a fundamental mistake here - a three-party system doesn't exist!

The Anglo-Saxon nations have a two-party system because of their voting rules; district system, first-past-the-post. Following the Law of Duverger (one of two Laws in political science), this results in a two-and-a-half party system, or if you consider some extensive gerrymandering, two parties.

You can't redesign a two-party system into a three-party system. You'd have to redesign the electoral system.

The common alternative to the Anglo-Saxon model is proportional representation, where the legislature is simply a percentage-wise reflection of the electorate. If 3% of the voters vote a particular party, they get 3% of the seats. This usually yield about seven political parties (like Israel, Netherlands) or sometimes less if you thrown in a threshold (like Germany).

So if you want to redesign the political spectrum, there's a huge fundamental shift to be made. And with politicians not even able to agree on a pretty practical issue of healthcare, I don't ever see them agreeing on something more fundamental like the electoral system. Especially not one in which the vested interests by definition will lose influence.

Minister, you could have both.

First past the post gets 40% of the seats, 60% by PR.

Australia's preferential voting system would allow multiple parties to be relevant. If your first choice can't win then your next choice used as your vote and so on until you're down to two candidates. No wasted votes.
Of course, this is all theoretical because this voting system is never going to be implemented in the US.

@ SYnapse: They have something like that in the devolved parliament in Scotland. It works reasonably well although it is now leading to the possiblity of Scotland's secession from the UK...

@ Semck: "It's that it's completely counerproductive and insane to vote for a third party in the US, because you just make it more likely your preferred party will lose."

Presumably you mean "your preferred party out of the two that you didn't vote for" ? If you vote for a third party, surely the third party is the one you prefer?

@SY Wot? % of what?

PR usually makes the legislature about 95% proportional to the electorate that showed up. DS usually gets in the thirties/fourties.

Jamiet, correct -- thank you for catching my imprecision. I mean "your preferred party of those that actually have any hope of winning."

A little north of 95% of the American electorate understand this fact. (Of course there can be exceptions in something like a gubernatorial race, where a candidate so strong runs on the third party ticket that, by common consent and a slow feedback loop of polling, he actually gains a chance or even sometimes wins. It's the exception that proves the rule, though -- the minute he's gone the party will collapse).

Let's say your Parliament has 200 seats.

The party who wins first past the post takes 75 seats. The other 125 seats are distributed according to PR of the total vote.

So it would be possible to secure a large majority if you can get the votes, on the other hand a divided election would give us a lot of parties in Parliament.

Ah yes, a mixed system. There's been talk, but as far as I know this doesn't exist yet in one single legislature (if you know one I'd love to know). To my mind this is not great, because it dilutes the main purpose of a legislature: to be a representation of the people. Certainly you can have differing views on what philosophy achieves that best - but mixing philosophies? How does that make the system better?

Personally, I think the two chamber system of US system really lends itself to experiment different ways of voting. You could have a senate based on DS, and a House based on PR.

Or STV. Gotta love STV.

"mixing philosophies? How does that make the system better?"

I think the main criticism of the FPTP system is that it allows tyranny of the majority

Yes it is. So why not just do PR instead of this hybrid?

You could use DS for when it is relevant that *regions* are relevant (like the Senate) and PR where the people as a whole are relevant (like Presidential elections). The House could fall into the second category.

"This usually yield about seven political parties (like Israel, Netherlands)"

Over here we've got 11 political parties with seats to my knowledge. 7 is dangerously low already IMO. The thing is that this way you can't always have your way just because you did well in an election 3 years ago. And, for example, if your plan is just a vote or two short you might want to think about making the plan a bit greener so the tree huggers and animal huggers join you. That way everybody who can get a seat actually has influence, and you can be prime minister but if your plan sucks it won't go through (I mean, with the types of Obama, who wouldn't want that?).

Last but not least, there are no shutdowns, hostage takings and that shit because if there's a coalition without you there's a way forward. Always.

I think that should be implemented over there. It just makes sense.

The Amerixan system could be used in emergency when we're at risk of being whiped off the earth, but until then our system beats that one IMO.

@ MinisterofWar: "So why not just do PR instead of this hybrid?"

Because PR has weaknesses too. Primarily, PR *only* allows you to vote for a party, not a person. One of the purposes of elections, certainly in the British tradition, is not just to select the party you like, but to appoint a specific person to be your representative in parliament. In many UK parliamentary elections, at the seat-by-seat level, some voters will back the *person* they want as their Member of Parliament based on how much faith they have in them as a local representative, not just on the basis of their party's national policies.

PR doesn't give you that, but a hybrid system, such as Scotland has, does - in Scotland you vote for both a local MSP, based on FPTP, and you cast a vote on a regional PR list based on the party you want to support.

"Primarily, PR *only* allows you to vote for a party, not a person. "

That's not true. In fact, most political systems do not recognize parties at all in their constitution. Most legislative bodies, in both PR and DS, are bodies of persons in a constitutional sense, with a layer of parties on top of it. In other words, you *do* vote for a person, but with the knowledge that that person belongs to a specific political party. You do not vote for the party logo alone.

DS outperforms PR when it comes to regionality being important, when it matters that representatives of certain regions meet particular needs. For example, if you would need each province / state / whatever represented in a body. This is basically the function of the US senate. But for a normal representative body, I think it pays to simply use the most representative system. For the most part, a voter in region X should be treated pretty much the same as a voter in region Y. DS does not do that at all.

I'm reading up on the Scottish system - interesting. But damn, those decoy lists....

On a related note, I'm very much in favor of using DS when it comes to the European Parliament. I'd love to see a European Senate mirroring the US Senate. The EU is fragmented along state lines and needs such a body more than the US does. But we're a long way off still.

"For as long as it lasted, it would accomplish hegemony for whichever of the two original parties it was least like."

Bingo. If we want a libertarian party in the US (we do), then we should replace the Republican Party with it