Has anyone actually stopped to figure out how multi-party systems really scale? India is the largest in the world, but also A) has Euro-style population density and B) is maybe not such a great example of a functioning representative government. France and Germany are better examples of governments that mostly work, but are dealing with a fraction of the US population and order-of-magnitude differences in density and geographic area compared to the US.
And, tellingly, what I know of French and German politics is basically that, while in theory there are a bunch of parties and there are places where they can pick up a seat or two... they're still two-party in the sense that they tend to develop stable, long-lived pairs of large dominant parties, who in turn are the only ones with a shot at forming a government. Every once in a while a third party gets just big enough to play kingmaker, but that's about it. And that doesn't sound like enough of a sweeping change to justify rebooting the entire system.
France and Germany are not so two-party. In the 53 years of France's current government, they have elected presidents from four parties. In the 22 years since German reunification, they have had presidents from three parties and one independent.
Meanwhile, in the last 159 years, the US has only had Democrats and Republicans.
Also, even if minor parties do not get elected, they offer healthy competition and keep the main parties on their toes. Candidates in the US hate to present concrete plans or answer specific questions. They only have one opponent, so they take the least controversial stance that will differentiate them against the other guy. Offering more information than this minimum required is bad strategy.
If other parties were in the running, candidates would be forced to take positions and offer plans, because they have to differentiate themselves from several opponents.
I don't think changing how we elect people counts as "rebooting the entire system". We would have to eliminate the electoral college, but who would be against that? It is a relic left over from the days when local election results had to travel on horseback with a trusted messenger.
>France and Germany are not so two-party. In the 53 years of France's current government, they have elected presidents from four parties.
It's really two and a half.
De Gaulle - Pompidou - Chirac -Sarkozy were part of the same party that morphed and changed names everytime there was a new leader.
Miterrand - Hollande are the other.
Giscard was a one-term president from a party that has always been a junior partner of Main Right-Center party. So he's the half.
Does Germany hold runoff elections? It looks like Merkel won in 2009 with only 34% of the vote. If they use the same system that the US does, that is probably why their elections only choose between the main two parties.
Actually, the Chancellor is elected by the bundestag and not directly by voters.
And yes, it is required that more than half of the bundestag votes for the candidate.
Other comments have covered the France/Germany thing.
I will point out that I'm actually a fan of the electoral college in the present day, and believe it serves a useful purpose.
The quintessential problem in American politics is the different regions of the country, which all have their own set of interests and values. And, in general, people get very upset when they feel they aren't represented at all; for example, I live in the lone county in my state that consistently trends liberal, and I know that my vote effectively doesn't count for anything state-wide or any national election, because I'm surrounded and outnumbered by far more conservative voters. This is frustrating and leads to apathy.
Similarly, when a significant region of the country is effectively disenfranchised in this fashion, serious problems result. And that's what would happen if we replaced the electoral college by direct popular election: a small number of coastal population centers would essentially decide every election, leaving a huge swathe of the country realizing that their votes don't count.
Under the current electoral system, meanwhile, candidates for President have to be responsive to the interests of a broader cross-section of the country in order to get elected. On the whole, I think that's a good thing, because it ensures that we don't end up in a tyranny-of-the-urban-majority situation.
Perhaps we should eliminate parties altogether. The existence of party whips and cabinets in many countries tells us a lot about their "representative" democracies.
It's fine if they work together. I just don't think a formalized hierarchy, nor a populace voting for candidates due to their party association, is healthy -- it causes bad distortions, like the threat of political death if a member dares cross the floor.
I agree that there are problems with/from hierarchy and single-lever voting, I guess I don't think that it comes from formalized parties. I pretty much end up blaming the voter (I end up reducing a lot of complaints about voting systems to "If this democracy had more rules, people would vote better", which doesn't necessarily make much sense).
It would be interesting to see what resulted from removing affiliation information from ballots.
Furthermore, the lack of discipline of US parties has to be taken into consideration.
They're basically coalitions in which factions compete for power and influence through primaries and financing while in France everyone knows the minor center-left parties (the Greens for instance) will participate in a coalition led by the Socialist Party.
The negociation on the inclusion of this or that topic in the common platform are formal.
Has anyone actually stopped to figure out how multi-party systems really scale? India is the largest in the world, but also A) has Euro-style population density and B) is maybe not such a great example of a functioning representative government. France and Germany are better examples of governments that mostly work, but are dealing with a fraction of the US population and order-of-magnitude differences in density and geographic area compared to the US.
And, tellingly, what I know of French and German politics is basically that, while in theory there are a bunch of parties and there are places where they can pick up a seat or two... they're still two-party in the sense that they tend to develop stable, long-lived pairs of large dominant parties, who in turn are the only ones with a shot at forming a government. Every once in a while a third party gets just big enough to play kingmaker, but that's about it. And that doesn't sound like enough of a sweeping change to justify rebooting the entire system.