Vote(d) 2012 ... can't mediate the Ho Ho's

[SolEiji]

Secondly, multiparty systems are rife with extreme parties.  E.g., 21 (out of 300) seats in the Greek Parliament belong to the Golden Dawn, who are neo-Nazis who advocate for immigrant work camps. 

Indeed, I think political science is pretty clear that you get less extreme parties in a two party system. 

This got me thinking.  Is this actually a bad thing?

Think about it.  Say an extreme party got a seat, the Neo-Nazis or something.  Unless they're unusually prevalent in the nation, they are what, 1 or 2 out of many?  As a result, they CAN'T run their crazy ideas to kill all the jews or whatever.  They HAVE to compromise to do anything they think is right, so even if they have some seats they'll be hard pressed to get anything actually done unless it's closer to centrist thought.

As a result whoever gets in there would have to find common ground with as many different parties to achieve the majority they need.  More extreme parties but less overall extremism.

[Unbeliever]

^ I don't know.  It'd be hard to make a definitive value judgment. 

I will say that in Greece, a non-trivial number of Golden Dawn representatives were elected.  21 out of 300 is about 7%, which means, especially in a fragmented legislature, they may need to be bought off.  And, having to buy off neo-Nazis to pass legislation might be terrible.  As a side note, the Greece example is an extreme one -- Greece is in a pretty crazy set of circumstances, so obviously it's not multiparty systems = Nazis.  Although I suppose that extreme circumstances are really the test of these things. 

Here's the comparison:  is it more likely that a group of legislators from disparate parties will negotiate and hammer out "moderate" policies, or is it more likely that moderate officials will be elected when they have to appeal to a broad swathe of the electorate? 

I don't know.  I can see the argument that the FPP "you must appeal to half the electorate" approach leads to more moderate officials to be elected.  An extremist that gets elected can reasonably claim to have a mandate of some sort, and therefore have that justification not to compromise.  The same logic that SolEiji mentions within the legislature operates on candidates when they pick and articulate their political positions. 

And, extreme parties, if they are elected to the legislature, then get a big stage.  They get, typically, to use a broad array of state apparatus to spread their message. 

But, those observations cut both ways.  You may get less "extreme" parties, but you also potentially push out a lot of voices that have a considerable amount of support.  Federalism is thought to cure that a little bit, though only a little bit. 

[Nanshork]

@ Phaedrusxy:

The Libertarians can gain a lot of traction if the GOP collapses in an internal civil war, only problem is the Libertarians are so small government that lots of Americans will not support them.  End federal subsidies for farmers?  Lose the farmer vote.  Cut military spending?  Americans will claim that they're sacrificing safety and security.  Say Social Security's a Ponzi scheme?  Well, don't count on senior citizens or middle-aged people voting for you.

The Green Party is too single issue (environmentalism) to gain a lot of traction.

I think the US could do a lot of good with the 3rd parties, only problem is that their policies don't have mass appeal.

About the Libertarians, some of those issues are small snippits of an overarching plan so education on the party's actual beliefs could help a lot with that.

Also, the Green Party is at a minimum a dual issue party.  They are currently just as big on pro/increased Affirmative Action as they are on Environmentalism.

[RobbyPants]

The core problem of a two party system(even in contrast to effectively two party coalitions), is it's tendency towards extremism and polarising politics. Instead of working together to reach the balance of policies the country needs, they pursue their policies and stonewalls the other party where possible. This also makes moving away from the system unlikely, any newcomer would be crushed between the extant duo's reach.

Multi-party systems, especially where they need to make alliances to obtain a ruling coalition(rather than winning on size alone), must make compromises, and thus aims towards centrism in policy even as individual parties get crazier and appeal to smaller niches. They cannot focus purely on one section of the electorate because it's not enough.

According to the highly scientific source of Cracked, this is wrong. In #6, they say that it's actually the opposite that happens. Two party systems tend to moderate and multi-party once force extremism:

#6. Myth: The Two-Party System Is Dividing Us into Opposing Tribes of Extremists

Americans are as frustrated with our lack of political choices as we are with our lack of genitalia choices. It's ridiculous -- how can the same country that offers 500 varieties of dog toothpaste only offer up two viable options for the most important job in the country? Look at your Facebook feed -- everyone that you haven't already blocked for their political rants is bemoaning the fact that both Mitt Romney and Obama suck. Which explains why 57 percent of Americans wish that they had at least one more option at the poll. Surely there has to be a better way.

But Actually ...

Choices are nice, but there's one underrated advantage of the two-party system: It makes everyone more moderate. Multiparty systems, as attractive as they may sound, also lead to more fanaticism.

Yes, it could be worse than this.

Think of it this way: Say you have a group of 10 dudes who are trying to figure out where to go out to eat. If the town only has two restaurants (a Hooters and a low-rent Hooters knockoff called TitWings), it's easier to get everybody to all agree on Hooters -- you only need six guys to come around. But if there are dozens of restaurants and each guy wants to go to a different one, they're all going to argue at the bar until they starve to death a month later. It's simply easier to bring people together when they don't have that many places to go. So despite how extreme Democrats and Republicans each claim the other party is, ideological polarization is less likely with only two parties.

For proof, look at the Galactic Senate. Or India. Let's just go with India. Multiparty systems foster excessive regionalism, with elected leaders focusing on trivial local concerns rather than larger national ones, the equivalent of that one lone guy who is zealous about eating at Buffalo Boobs despite the fact that it's not even a restaurant. This is the problem in India, which has so many political parties that we can't count them, making the country so difficult to manage that it's often called a "functioning anarchy."

(I'm too lazy to include all the hyperlinks from the original article. )

[SolEiji]

Not sure if serious.... 

[Libertad]

Cracked Magazine does have a point, except that a "moderate" two-party system is not currently happening in the US.  The GOP is an extreme party, while the Democrats are relatively spineless moderates.

This article has a very good explanation of how the extremist entertainment industry of Fox News and far-right talk radio is morphing the Republican Party into a Frankenstein's Monster of liberal boogeymen.

[brujon]

@Tshern
Advocating for change is one thing.  Scolding people for doing the best option available to them under the regime they live in is another.  Although I'd question your claim to either.  Multiple parties \= better parties or better politics, viz. about 80% of the elections in the world.  It's a simplistic view of the world.  Proportional representation does not mystically solve political ills.  Just ask Italy. 

And, yes, there are important distinctions between the UK and the US system.  Most notably that UK seats are tied to party and not to individuals.  The UK system undermines the ability to create a personal constituency.  There are lots of other little bits to the system that change the relationships between parties and voters.  The parliamentary system, and the way members of the House of Commons are not tied to a particular district in the same way -- the party will move them around, putting weak candidates in more secure districts and stronger ones in weaker ones. 

Personal constituencies are much stronger in the US.  This has a few effects, notably stronger incumbency advantages and squishier parties. 

That being said, what's the point of the UK example?  They have, essentially, a 2-party system.  The current unstable coalition is about as common as a Perot-style candidate in the US.

ITALY? Screw Italy! We have THOUSANDS of different parties here in Brazil! I mean, you don't need MUCH to create your OWN party...

It.
Doesn't.
Help.

Two party systems are bad, but a whole lot of them is equally bad. I mean, i literally don't know what 99% of them are about, and those 1% i DO know about, hold about 99% of the seats in congress, so it doesn't really matter.

Just to get you an idea, i'll gather a list off the top of my head...

PT = (Partido do Trabalhador) = Labor Party
PSDB = Partido Socialista do Brasil = Socialist Party of Brazil
PCdoB = Partido Comunista do Brasil = Communist Party of Brazil
PV = Partido Verde = Green Party
DEM = Democratas = Democrats
PMDB = Partido do Movimento Democrático do Brasil  = Democratic Movement Party of Brazil
PP = Partido Progressista = Progressive Party
PSTU = Partido Socialista dos Trabalhadores Unificado = United Socialist Labor Party

And these are just off the top of my head! There's literally dozens more. These are ONLY the most relevant. Not only it doesn't work to have that many parties, it actually confuses the electorate, simply because most of them are undereducated, and as such, they vote based on WHAT they'll get personally from it, and from PERSONAL identification with the candidate.

Oh, don't fret over it. We don't actually have much of a "right wing" here in Brazil. The rightmost party from the list up above is the Democrats, while, you guessed it, PSTU and PCdoB are at the leftmost corner. It doens't really help over here that we don't have the same distinctions you have on the US about Conservatives = Right and Liberal = Left. No, over here, most of the population is conservative, so mostly all of the parties maintain a conservative view of politics. The right is actually more liberal than the left. You would be pretty confused living and voting here...

[SolEiji]

I see your dozens of parties and wonder how many of them are radically different from the others?  Besides specific goals like "environment" or "jobs" I find parties scale on the conservative-liberal and authoritarian-anarchistic scales, leaving us with a D&D-esque "9 alignments".  I'd imagine that alignment-similar parties with different specific goals would work together and leave you with 9 effective parties made of a billion subparties.

That said, even if multiple parties isn't the solution to all (which isn't the claim, but I know what you mean), I think I'd prefer it over two.  At least for the options to be there, and make it easier for parties to rise and fall.  Parties in power too long grow corrupt.

Oh, and...

PERSONAL identification with the candidate

That actually seems like a plus.  I rather people vote for a person and not a party.  Far too many just mindlessly check blue or red because "I'm Team Demo" or "I'm Team Repub"!

[brujon]

I see your dozens of parties and wonder how many of them are radically different from the others?  Besides specific goals like "environment" or "jobs" I find parties scale on the conservative-liberal and authoritarian-anarchistic scales, leaving us with a D&D-esque "9 alignments".  I'd imagine that alignment-similar parties with different specific goals would work together and leave you with 9 effective parties made of a billion subparties.

That said, even if multiple parties isn't the solution to all (which isn't the claim, but I know what you mean), I think I'd prefer it over two.  At least for the options to be there, and make it easier for parties to rise and fall.  Parties in power too long grow corrupt.

Oh, and...

PERSONAL identification with the candidate

That actually seems like a plus.  I rather people vote for a person and not a party.  Far too many just mindlessly check blue or red because "I'm Team Demo" or "I'm Team Repub"!

Well... It's not a plus.

What it does, is make the candidate more willing to EMULATE a certain kind of "persona" that he thinks will appeal to the target voting audience.

Which means, you tend to get really CRAZY ass shit nearing election day. Like guys emulating WOLVERINE, or BATMAN or shit...

Even when it doesn't get ALL that crazy, what you get is people going all like "I'm voting for this guy because he goes to the same church i do" or "I'm voting for THIS guy because said he's going to give everyone a home" - even though that shit is completely impossible.

There's NO political reasoning outside of ANY of the major metropolis, and the candidates just try and appeal to whatever they think will draw in more voters.

I, personally, want a system like the German one, where you vote for the PARTY, and not for the CANDIDATE...

Voting on PEOPLE is WORSE than voting on political parties...

EDIT;

Also, they're not politically nemesis at all. In fact, you have political coalitions that join parties with radically different ideas just so they can fill up congress with MORE candidates, and further their political agendas. The bias here is HEAVILY to the left, and most parties orient towards that way. In fact, what is really CURIOUS about Brazil, is that the whole population has a rather similar political mentality, if you compare it to countrys of a similar size... Which really lends itself really well to the idea of simulating a lot of political parties, when in fact, you only have about two or three that really want to take things in opposite directions from eachother...

The prospect for the future here, if i may say so myself, is pretty fucking grim.

[bhu]

Theoretically you could say screw parties and primaries.  Let individuals run, limit the money/airtime to what the poorest candidate can afford, and let them have at it.

[dman11235]

Issue: Hobo the Bum wants to run.  He has no money.  Now Poorman McHaslittle can't spend his meager savings on trying to get elected.

EDIT: Issue 2: issue with solving Issue: if the government supplies candidates with money to run, then Crazy McCrazypants runs.  Takes money from government to run on platform of eyeballs eating his tree farm.

[bhu]

Obviously you would also tighten the rules for qualifying, as in must pass a mental health exam, must not have committed a violent crime, must not be an addict of any kind, must have a verifiable residence and contact info, etc.

Also you could really fuck with the Plutocrats and make a qualifier: "Must be willing to sell all stock and cede all ties to corporate or other entities whose interests you may be able to unfairly influence policy upon.  Suck it bitches" 

[dman11235]

That has to be the wording of that regulation.  Exact wording.  Please.

[SolEiji]

Issue: Hobo the Bum wants to run.  He has no money.  Now Poorman McHaslittle can't spend his meager savings on trying to get elected.

EDIT: Issue 2: issue with solving Issue: if the government supplies candidates with money to run, then Crazy McCrazypants runs.  Takes money from government to run on platform of eyeballs eating his tree farm.

And yet, I would vote for both over most politicians.

A possible fix for this is that you could do the equivalent of local Kickstarters for politics.  Regardless of money standing they go on there and give their basic gist, be it fixing the roads or improving his eye tree.  Enough hits gives him enough fame to get federal funds.  That should weed out the nonserious or insane and leave those with passable sanity: someone's vouched for this guy.

(EDITS HAPPEN)

You know what, nevermind.  I like bhu's restrictions.  Especially that last one.  +1 on the exact wording.  X3

[dman11235]

The question wasn't whether or not they would be good politicians, it's that they have no money, and no money=no politician.  And the poorest one is dictating the terms of the campaign (in other words, no campaign at all, meaning no voter is informed).

Your second part is basically what I was saying a few posts ago.  Start politicians at the local level, and have more surrounding areas vote for the bigger area, and keep going up until federal level.  Sort of like primaries, except instead of "anyone gets in", it's "there's 50 candidates, one from each state.  Pick one".  But less stupid than what I just said.

[bhu]

The poorest dictating the terms of the campaign was entirely intentional.  It doesn't mean you can't inform voters, you just have the networks assign each equal air time, and the government give them equal money in the competition.  It stops elections from being about who has the most connections/money/donors freezing out people who may have better ideas but no money to pursue the goals.

[Unbeliever]

Cracked Magazine does have a point, except that a "moderate" two-party system is not currently happening in the US.  The GOP is an extreme party, while the Democrats are relatively spineless moderates.

Cracked.com was trying to explain very durable political science findings -- Duverger's Law, etc. as I have referenced above, which is really based on the median voter theorem and the Hotelling model of competition -- in a fairly amusing way.

Note that this is an all else being equal finding.  That is, given the population and distribution of the electorate, you would have less extreme parties with political system A rather than political system B.  A two-party, first past the post system does not guaranty "no extremism."  It just tends to produce less extremism.  And, there are times of both extremism in one direction (the New Deal, where the US was a single party nation) or where there is extreme division (the Civil War), in spite of the system. 

Theoretically you could say screw parties and primaries.  Let individuals run, limit the money/airtime to what the poorest candidate can afford, and let them have at it.

There is no requirement that you belong to a party to run for office in the US.  It's just hella convenient due to the machinery in place, branding, etc. 

[veekie]

Well, it varies by country I guess. Locally, the fundamentally one-coalition system is only kept from extremism because the biggest party is not enough to obtain a dominant majority by itself(racial-oriented nationalists only have a majority), and must compromise in limited ways to keep it's coalition in one piece. It's also the same model that allowed a significant opposition coalition to arise out of otherwise squabbling parties. The Islamic Fundamentalists had to compromise with the Democratic Socialists and the Populists in order to present a threat against the racially aligned triple nationalist ruling coalition. On top of that, various independents and minor parties get some say by the same political structure.

What IS for sure is two party systems are extremely resistant to change. Any change other than to the other party is resisted by the full political force, to get them to lose their deathgrip requires practically national collapse before they are at any risk.

[Unbeliever]

Well, it varies by country I guess.

Sure, but not as much as you think.  This is why there is a whole field of study called Politics (or Government or Political Science depending on the label).  And, that field isn't just area studies.  I and other political scientists can tell you about the effects various systems are going to have.  Those aren't determinative -- as I've indicated in other posts they depend, inter alia, on the underlying distribution of political preferences in the electorate.  If 80% of the electorate wants an extremist party, you're going to have an extremist party, regardless of political system, to take a hyberbolic example. 

There are also other things at work, such as primaries, local norms about the distribution of seats, availability of funding, and federalism that make the general, tinkertoy findings I've mentioned not 100% accurate. 

What IS for sure is two party systems are extremely resistant to change. Any change other than to the other party is resisted by the full political force, to get them to lose their deathgrip requires practically national collapse before they are at any risk.

I know of no evidence to support this claim.  It's surely the case that any entity in power wants to continue holding power, but I know of no reason why partisans of party A prefer to surrender authority to party B rather than party C.  Unless, that is, party B is closer to them ideologically.  We know that a given political system will tend towards 2 parties.  There are good strategic reasons for that.  What the identity of the two parties are is totally up for grabs.  And, in the US, earlier in its history parties shuffled around a lot.  The Republican Party, for example, was created whole cloth. 

Now, there are good reasons to expect, especially now, that the Democrats and the Republicans will persist.  They have a lot of resources, well-established brands, etc.  And, despite the current clamorous political environment in the US, most issues are at the margins -- there isn't something like slavery dividing the nation. 

But, even then, there have been major, I repeat major, partisan realignments.  So, while the labels haven't changed, the parties chose to radically change themselves.  60 years ago the entire American South belonged to the Democrats.  Completely.  100%.  And, the Democratic Party by opting to support the major Civil Rights Acts changed that.  One could very reasonably argue that you had 2 parties, the Democrats (pre-1960s, and some studies separate out the Southern Democrats for just this reason) and the Democrats (post-1960s).  And, their membership changed to reflect that.  Strom Thurmond, to take a notable example, was once a Democrat.  I believe the Republicans had a similar realignment, though it finds its way into fewer textbooks, involving their decision to embrace Evangelical Christians as a political force. 

[Unbeliever]

^ I guess my above point is that I think you're misdiagnosing the problem.  The problem that Veekie and others identify is not being caused by the two party system.  Or, at least not by the two party system on its own.