Australia has ranked choice and we also have a 2-party system for all intents and purposes. I don't think ranked choice is the answer, but the voting system (mixed-member proportional) used in New Zealand and Germany seems to be doing a much better job of getting a good variety of voices in their respective legislatures.
That is certainly true, and the downsides of a two-party system are not small. On the other hand, multi-party systems have a tendency to build less stable governments, which was one of the reasons for the downfall of the Weimacher Republik and the rise of the NSDAP.
With the addition of more parties to the German political spectrum, building coalitions has been harder in recent years, forcing essentially the two most central mainstream parties, CDU/CSU and SPD, to build a "great coalition". The problem of this is that people not happy with the results necessarily have to vote more extreme, and we did see a lot of protest votes, swinging from the very-left Die Linke to the ultra-right Afd, for example.
Observing the political process in the US, it seems that the primaries leave the final candidates always somewhat worse for wear, maybe more so on the Democrat side than on the Republican side (Infighting seems to be a worldwide phenomenon more prevalent on the left). By necessity, most winning candidates must then do a dance from the more extreme positions they expressed to win the primaries to the center. This is almost by construction, as the voters in the primaries will almost always be more extreme than the voters in the presidential election, even if reduced to those which would consider to vote for the party in the first place.
> On the other hand, multi-party systems have a tendency to build less stable governments,
That's the popular myth, based largely on a combination of conflation of parliamentary and multiparty systems (the two have no essential connection) and the fact that parliamentary systems tend to use different language around a government/administration than presidential systems do.
Measured by either cabinet or head of government turnover rates, multiparty parliamentary systems among established democracies are more stable than the US.
> which was one of the reasons for the downfall of the Weimacher Republik and the rise of the NSDAP.
Two party systems have at least as much problem (really, more) forming moderate-to-opposing extreme coalitions against extremists from one side, which is how extremists of the Right have progressively hijacked a major party in the US, with nothing like the level of externally-imposed stress that produced the NSDAP in Germany. [0] At least in a multiparty system, forming a coalition across tribal identity boundaries formed by party labels is expected.
The idea of a grand coalition _seems_ odd, because I think we’re all accustomed to our major political parties fighting rather than cooperating, but if they can work together isn’t that a rejection of extremism on both sides and an embrace of centrism, which, perhaps, is what the German majority actually want? I know very little about German politics so I’m just asking the question here - but I’m genuinely curious, what’s the downside?
For short term, I think these coalitions can work. But there are two problems: First, in a normal big party/small party coalition, the small party typically has a very specific agenda. For example the Green party with environment protection. So it's easy to make a combined program: The program of the big party + that special thing. With two "we do everything" parties, where each party wants to appear as "having made their mark", it's much harder to combine to a big program. And because everybody wants to leave their mark, there is a lot of fighting, so that in the next election, you can rule alone or with a small party, so you'll have more power.
Second: There will always be people not happy with the government. Maybe because they really got handed the short stick, or because they just tend to pick the short stick. That is true even if they are better off than before, just if other people are more better off, people will not be happy. These people want to vote for an opposition. Who should they vote for? They can only go to an extreme party.
> There will always be people not happy with the government.
> Who should they vote for? They can only go to an extreme party.
That is what extremists want you to believe. But the belief that both big parties are corrupt exists in the USA as well, and it helped Trump. The fact of the matter is, if you are unhappy with what a grand coalition does, you can still vote for the party that you agree more with to have it gain more power next time around. Only if you believe that cooperation and compromise themself are bad things, you have to vote extreme.
That is easy to observe in German politics. Yes, some people vote for the party they agree with more, but many do not. This has nothing to do with "the party is corrupt", but with "the party doesn't do what I want them to do".
> That is certainly true, and the downsides of a two-party system are not small. On the other hand, multi-party systems have a tendency to build less stable governments, which was one of the reasons for the downfall of the Weimacher Republik and the rise of the NSDAP.
I'm no longer convinced that this is a good argument, given that a two-party system just gave rise to the Trump party over the past four years - and it was 'rejected' by a mere ~60,000 votes in a country of 350 million.
Americans for some reason have fixated on FPTP as the cause of the two-party system and hope RCV/IRV will extract them from it.
The basis of a two-party system is actually single-member electorates. Because each seat can only have one representative and the economics of campaigning and organising make it hard for a third party to make appreciable inroads.
Australia's Parliament demonstrates the differences: the House of Representatives is composed of single-member electorates and is dominated by the two major political organisations (and this is for the good, as the government is formed in the House and a two-party system almost guarantees that a government can be formed and sustained easily after each election). The Senate, by contrast, is composed of multi-member electorates, one for each state, elected on a proportional basis. While the major parties typically have the largest share between them, the nature of a proportional multi-member electorate is that it creates more room for minor parties to obtain one or two seats.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I agree that there are other structural challenges in the way of making additional parties really viable. My theory is that changing from FPTP would sort of break the ice and allow other parties to gain momentum, normalize the idea of other parties not being totally fringe, and maybe pave the way for some other enabling changes once it’s no longer strategically a terrible idea to vote for the candidates you prefer but almost certainly won’t win. It’s not the only change that would help, to be sure.
