TWO PARTY SYSTEM; The Best?

[Call me Fada]

       Many scholars of politics have proven that two party systems are the best, but in my opinion I don’t think it is the best because it doesn’t really give room for proper democracy  because it’s just two persons that stands the chance of contesting for elective offices, the aspirants just come from two parties only and it makes democracy unbalanced in the society.
      In a democratic state I think it’s perfect for multi party systems to  take effect and come to stay because looking at the society generally you will see so many are interested and loved by their people but they ain’t given a voice simply because they’re not well connected. Multi party systems allow the grassroots movement have a strong voice and high level profile. 

[1714502512]

1714502512

[1714502512]

1714502512

[1714502512]

1714502512

[1714502512]

1714502512

[Rruchi man]

Many will argue that the two party style system is the best, however, in my own point of view, Two party system presents a limited choice of who to vote for by members of the public. Since only two propaganda's will be represented in a two party system, if you can't align your desire to any of them, you will find yourself not having any of the candidates presented by the two parties in mind.

[Mauser]

       Many scholars of politics have proven that two party systems are the best, but in my opinion I don’t think it is the best because it doesn’t really give room for proper democracy  because it’s just two persons that stands the chance of contesting for elective offices, the aspirants just come from two parties only and it makes democracy unbalanced in the society.
      In a democratic state I think it’s perfect for multi party systems to  take effect and come to stay because looking at the society generally you will see so many are interested and loved by their people but they ain’t given a voice simply because they’re not well connected. Multi party systems allow the grassroots movement have a strong voice and high level profile. 

The two party system has a lot of advantages but I believe that it is not the optimal system. Having a two party system feels a bit like looking at everything in black and white, you are either for something or against it. But the world is not black and white, there are plenty of grey areas. Having more than 2 parties, like maybe 4 or 5 would make if easier for the voter to fully identify with one party.

[Natsuu]

       Many scholars of politics have proven that two party systems are the best, but in my opinion I don’t think it is the best because it doesn’t really give room for proper democracy  because it’s just two persons that stands the chance of contesting for elective offices, the aspirants just come from two parties only and it makes democracy unbalanced in the society.
      In a democratic state I think it’s perfect for multi party systems to  take effect and come to stay because looking at the society generally you will see so many are interested and loved by their people but they ain’t given a voice simply because they’re not well connected. Multi party systems allow the grassroots movement have a strong voice and high level profile. 

Indeed, two party system is not that good, but how will you abolish it, isn't two party system a concept of two major parties in conquer for politics?

If it is just a concept, we need to destroy it from the mindset of the people, but how will you achieve it? you need to form a new party which is needed to be large enough to compete with these two giants.

[Call me Fada]

       Many scholars of politics have proven that two party systems are the best, but in my opinion I don’t think it is the best because it doesn’t really give room for proper democracy  because it’s just two persons that stands the chance of contesting for elective offices, the aspirants just come from two parties only and it makes democracy unbalanced in the society.
      In a democratic state I think it’s perfect for multi party systems to  take effect and come to stay because looking at the society generally you will see so many are interested and loved by their people but they ain’t given a voice simply because they’re not well connected. Multi party systems allow the grassroots movement have a strong voice and high level profile. 

Indeed, two party system is not that good, but how will you abolish it, isn't two party system a concept of two major parties in conquer for politics?

If it is just a concept, we need to destroy it from the mindset of the people, but how will you achieve it? you need to form a new party which is needed to be large enough to compete with these two giants.

     That’s the point the voters are been manipulated, yes I will say it again they’re been manipulated it’s just like you enforcing what they don’t want on them. Some political analysts would still say  this is the right and best system. Let’s critically analyze this, we will notice how bad this party system is

[Cnut237]

Many scholars of politics have proven that two party systems are the best, but in my opinion I don’t think it is the best

Two party politics is only marginally better than one party politics.
Simplifying somewhat to a simple left/right policy spectrum, where each party has a position on the line... it benefits both parties to move as close to the other one as they can.

If you are the party of the 'left', and the other party is more right-wing than you... then you will always pick up all of the votes to the left of your own party, and (simplifying) all of the votes to the right of your party that are still closer to you than to the opposition. If you move to the right, you gain votes, if you move to the left you lose votes.

Basically two-party is guaranteed to establish a centrist position from both parties, so they become in many respects indistinguishable from one another.

[Natsuu]

       Many scholars of politics have proven that two party systems are the best, but in my opinion I don’t think it is the best because it doesn’t really give room for proper democracy  because it’s just two persons that stands the chance of contesting for elective offices, the aspirants just come from two parties only and it makes democracy unbalanced in the society.
      In a democratic state I think it’s perfect for multi party systems to  take effect and come to stay because looking at the society generally you will see so many are interested and loved by their people but they ain’t given a voice simply because they’re not well connected. Multi party systems allow the grassroots movement have a strong voice and high level profile. 

Indeed, two party system is not that good, but how will you abolish it, isn't two party system a concept of two major parties in conquer for politics?

If it is just a concept, we need to destroy it from the mindset of the people, but how will you achieve it? you need to form a new party which is needed to be large enough to compete with these two giants.

     That’s the point the voters are been manipulated, yes I will say it again they’re been manipulated it’s just like you enforcing what they don’t want on them. Some political analysts would still say  this is the right and best system. Let’s critically analyze this, we will notice how bad this party system is

But the problem lies on how will it be possible to implement the multi-party system, when there are multiple parties already.

It is just that the two party system is a concept of 2 major parties that conquers other parties in number and power. To have multiple major parties, parties in politics should have almost same number of members to balance the numbers. BUT, is there people willing to do this? and if there is, how many? will others risk going to minor parties instead of going to the major ones?

[Cnut237]

It is just that the two party system is a concept of 2 major parties that conquers other parties in number and power. To have multiple major parties, parties in politics should have almost same number of members to balance the numbers. BUT, is there people willing to do this? and if there is, how many? will others risk going to minor parties instead of going to the major ones?

I don't think the number of parties is the issue, so much as the electoral system itself.
A first-past-the-post, or winner-takes-all system will always be unrepresentative and will always favour big parties, and cause people to not vote for smaller parties because they will be throwing their vote away.

Take an election where the result is:
40% red party
35% blue party
15% yellow party
10% purple party.

First-past-the-post means that red and blue will take almost all of the seats, and a vote for yellow or purple is pointless.
But proper proportional representation would give the seats in accordance with number of votes, 40% of seats to red, 10% to purple, etc... and would be so much fairer.

[Natsuu]

It is just that the two party system is a concept of 2 major parties that conquers other parties in number and power. To have multiple major parties, parties in politics should have almost same number of members to balance the numbers. BUT, is there people willing to do this? and if there is, how many? will others risk going to minor parties instead of going to the major ones?

I don't think the number of parties is the issue, so much as the electoral system itself.
A first-past-the-post, or winner-takes-all system will always be unrepresentative and will always favour big parties, and cause people to not vote for smaller parties because they will be throwing their vote away.

Take an election where the result is:
40% red party
35% blue party
15% yellow party
10% purple party.

First-past-the-post means that red and blue will take almost all of the seats, and a vote for yellow or purple is pointless.
But proper proportional representation would give the seats in accordance with number of votes, 40% of seats to red, 10% to purple, etc... and would be so much fairer.

So if the electoral system is the problem, then what is the best approach, I don't think there is a right approach as there will becoming an issue regarding how someting will vote, and how someone will have opposition.

Remember that 2 party system in US starts when the previous electoral system is seen to be biased to few peoples the administration trust.

[Cnut237]

So if the electoral system is the problem, then what is the best approach

The best system for ensuring that the politicians in power reflect voter intentions is proportional representation, where if a party wins e.g. 28% of the vote, then they get 28% of the seats.

Remember that 2 party system in US starts when the previous electoral system is seen to be biased to few peoples the administration trust.

As for the question of the optimum number of parties, I don't know. It's not two, though, as I outlined in a previous post. Arguably, if you switch from FPTP to a PR system, then the number of parties becomes less relevant... because under PR your vote for a minority party that wins say 5% of the vote will still be effective, and still give your party 5% of the seats.

The problem with the US system, beyond it being two party, is that the scale at which first-past-the-post works is so huge... it's by state. You could have 49% of people in a state voting Republican, and get the result that Democrats win so the representation for the whole state is entirely Democrat. This means that if your state for example always returns a Republican with say 70%+ of the vote, then you and potentially millions of others are effectively disenfranchised - unless there's a state-wide swing of huge proportions.

---
_{Edit: Typo. I don't think "Democracts" is a word.}

[Tash]

Two party or twenty party does not matter, its plain stupid to let someone with no skin in the game make the decisions for you.
Be a true Bitcoiner andtake matters into one's own hands.

[yhiaali3]

In my opinion, only the two-party system is closer to dictatorship, it is not reasonable that these two parties express the feelings of the whole nation, there must be better people than these politicians who are outside the two parties and therefore do not have any opportunity to participate in the decisions.
You can look at the United States, and you will see that the only two parties in the country control everything and no one outside the two parties has a chance to participate in any decision, in fact this is not democracy, there are many people who do not belong to any party and have many good ideas for the country and it should be The opportunity is given to them.

[Call me Fada]

In my opinion, only the two-party system is closer to dictatorship, it is not reasonable that these two parties express the feelings of the whole nation, there must be better people than these politicians who are outside the two parties and therefore do not have any opportunity to participate in the decisions.
You can look at the United States, and you will see that the only two parties in the country control everything and no one outside the two parties has a chance to participate in any decision, in fact this is not democracy, there are many people who do not belong to any party and have many good ideas for the country and it should be The opportunity is given to them.

   Unarguably you get my point two party system and dictatorship share interest there’s a little line between them both I have always argued that there’s nothing democratic about two party system for crying out loud where’s the democracy? Can we boldly say what happened in America 🇺🇸 was “the government of the people, by the people, and for the people “ (democracy) I’m pretty sure no one can come up to say that and it’s pathetic.

[Poker Player]

There is no single system that is the best. In this case, the two party has the disadvantage that minority opinions or sectors are not represented or are underrepresented. But the system with many parties also has the disadvantage that it is difficult to get them all to agree, and that sometimes by means of pacts a very minority party obtains advantages for its sector of voters that are exaggerated for the few votes it represents.

[Mauser]

There is no single system that is the best. In this case, the two party has the disadvantage that minority opinions or sectors are not represented or are underrepresented. But the system with many parties also has the disadvantage that it is difficult to get them all to agree, and that sometimes by means of pacts a very minority party obtains advantages for its sector of voters that are exaggerated for the few votes it represents.

I agree, too many small parties will make it impossible to combine them to reach 50%. With the people being so divided these days there is a lot of hostility involved in politics. The politicians prefer to block a new government instead of looking on compromises and how to move on. Everybody wants to get the biggest share of the cake and no one wants to be the loser. In Belgium for example it seems impossible to find a consent for a new government.

[Call me Fada]

There is no single system that is the best. In this case, the two party has the disadvantage that minority opinions or sectors are not represented or are underrepresented. But the system with many parties also has the disadvantage that it is difficult to get them all to agree, and that sometimes by means of pacts a very minority party obtains advantages for its sector of voters that are exaggerated for the few votes it represents.



Indeed there’s no single system that is the best but this is not the point, all I’m insinuating is you personally taking a thorough look at this two party system thing. Can you boldly say it is democratic? Placing instances from the United States 🇺🇸 previous election 🗳 process would you be able to say this is democratic I really need to know please, I’m so eager.

[Quickseller]

It is just that the two party system is a concept of 2 major parties that conquers other parties in number and power. To have multiple major parties, parties in politics should have almost same number of members to balance the numbers. BUT, is there people willing to do this? and if there is, how many? will others risk going to minor parties instead of going to the major ones?

I don't think the number of parties is the issue, so much as the electoral system itself.
A first-past-the-post, or winner-takes-all system will always be unrepresentative and will always favour big parties, and cause people to not vote for smaller parties because they will be throwing their vote away.

Take an election where the result is:
40% red party
35% blue party
15% yellow party
10% purple party.

First-past-the-post means that red and blue will take almost all of the seats, and a vote for yellow or purple is pointless.
But proper proportional representation would give the seats in accordance with number of votes, 40% of seats to red, 10% to purple, etc... and would be so much fairer.

What you say is true for a head of state, where there is one winning for the entire nation/state, however this is not the case for representative elections, where one representative represents a district. If there are three or four parties in the legislature, the parties will be forced to compromise to pass a budget and/or legislation.

To further improve a multi-party system, the number of districts could have halved, and each district would get two representatives, the candidates who receive the most and second most votes, and each voter could cast two votes in an election (but could not vote for one candidate twice).

[Cnut237]

the parties will be forced to compromise

Yes. I don't think this is a bad thing. Some countries have a history of coalition governments that work very well, Germany being an example.
Proportional representation is just that - the political positions of the representatives mirrors that of the electorate. It helps to prevent extremism, and the kind of oppositional and factional bickering that you get in 2-party systems... for example the pointless impeachment of Trump, when it was obvious that even if he'd gone on a massive killing spree with a machine gun, the Republicans would still have backed him.

To further improve a multi-party system, the number of districts could have halved, and each district would get two representatives, the candidates who receive the most and second most votes, and each voter could cast two votes in an election (but could not vote for one candidate twice).

I'm not sure about how it would work best... just that in general it's a better idea than FPTP, particularly when FPTP covers such huge regions (such as winner-takes-all for an entire state at a time).

[yat97]

The worst as implemented in the USA

[Quickseller]

the parties will be forced to compromise

Yes. I don't think this is a bad thing. Some countries have a history of coalition governments that work very well, Germany being an example.
Proportional representation is just that - the political positions of the representatives mirrors that of the electorate. It helps to prevent extremism, and the kind of oppositional and factional bickering that you get in 2-party systems... for example the pointless impeachment of Trump, when it was obvious that even if he'd gone on a massive killing spree with a machine gun, the Republicans would still have backed him.

In the US, politics have become nationalized, with many in congress fundraising primarily outside of their districts, and Senators fundraising from outside of their state. Both parties, but especially the Democrats have been able to keep their people in line, and to always toe the party line. Part of this is because there are so many 'safe seats' in congress, and representatives and Senators are more afraid of loosing in the primary than in the general election.

To further improve a multi-party system, the number of districts could have halved, and each district would get two representatives, the candidates who receive the most and second most votes, and each voter could cast two votes in an election (but could not vote for one candidate twice).

I'm not sure about how it would work best... just that in general it's a better idea than FPTP, particularly when FPTP covers such huge regions (such as winner-takes-all for an entire state at a time).

The above would make it more difficult to gerrymander districts so that a district will reliably remain in one party's control.