A big part of the motivation for this question was that I’ve had a longstanding anti-two-party stance, due to the apparent dysfunction of two-party politics in America. But I was talking with some people about it recently, who were of the opinion that many-party systems in other countries were not much more sane/effective. This got me thinking about ways in which my ideal could be compromised. Although my question mainly talked about a two-party scenario, the real motivation was to “avoid shenanigans” more generally.
The time-traveler example, in particular, was motivated by a claim that coalition governments of the sort you describe can give minority groups too much of a voice, if the minorities end up being tie-breakers for divisive issues.
So a very pertinent question, which I have little information on, is: do many-party systems have any statistically demonstrable benefits over two-party?
Another question I have: what primarily determines which places have many-party vs two-party systems, in reality? In theory, plurality voting and instant runoff both create two-party dynamics in the long run (for different reasons). But I’m not familiar with the practical differences in governments which have actually managed to sustain many parties in power. What kind of election do these governments use?
Mostly, I think, voting systems designed to ensure that parties get a share of seats that’s proportional to their number of votes (“party-list proportional representation” is what Wikipedia calls it). E.g. the D’Hondt method seems pretty popular (and is used in Finland as well as several other countries).
As for whether it’s actually better overall—well, I grew up with it and am used to it so I prefer it over something that would produce a two-party system. ;) But I don’t have any very strong facts to present over which system is actually best.
Interesting, thanks!
A big part of the motivation for this question was that I’ve had a longstanding anti-two-party stance, due to the apparent dysfunction of two-party politics in America. But I was talking with some people about it recently, who were of the opinion that many-party systems in other countries were not much more sane/effective. This got me thinking about ways in which my ideal could be compromised. Although my question mainly talked about a two-party scenario, the real motivation was to “avoid shenanigans” more generally.
The time-traveler example, in particular, was motivated by a claim that coalition governments of the sort you describe can give minority groups too much of a voice, if the minorities end up being tie-breakers for divisive issues.
So a very pertinent question, which I have little information on, is: do many-party systems have any statistically demonstrable benefits over two-party?
Another question I have: what primarily determines which places have many-party vs two-party systems, in reality? In theory, plurality voting and instant runoff both create two-party dynamics in the long run (for different reasons). But I’m not familiar with the practical differences in governments which have actually managed to sustain many parties in power. What kind of election do these governments use?
Mostly, I think, voting systems designed to ensure that parties get a share of seats that’s proportional to their number of votes (“party-list proportional representation” is what Wikipedia calls it). E.g. the D’Hondt method seems pretty popular (and is used in Finland as well as several other countries).
As for whether it’s actually better overall—well, I grew up with it and am used to it so I prefer it over something that would produce a two-party system. ;) But I don’t have any very strong facts to present over which system is actually best.