I suppose I support 'that one'

[lordandrei]

Believe it or not, I'm really not for a bipartisan system. Everytime I hear the phrase, "I reach across the aisle" it really makes me sick. The truth is, the reasons behind saying the system is broken aren't the real reasons

Comments

Re: So, what would you want?

[fraterseraphino]

Well, and the interesting part with a parliamentary system such as the one used in Italy (where N is large) is the fact that while nearly every position is represented by a party. Yet, once their parliament is seated, parliament necessarily has to organize itself into a 'government' by the different parties forming a coalition into a majority ruling government and into a minority "loyal opposition."

In other words, once seated, even Italy reorganize themselves into two 'super-parties.'

Such a system is less stable: a vote of "no confidence" can be called at any time, which forces elections at unpredictable times.

It also does something interesting: in an N-party system you can vote for and join the party that you believe represents you best, and watch them compromise themselves in a majority or minority party. In our 2-party system, you get to compromise yourself depending on local politics.

See, the "Republicans" is not a single mindset, neither is the "Democrats." Each party is essentially a coalition of different philosophical positions and political positions, loosely organized around the notion (using the more accurate terms) of Federalism (Democrats) verses Anti-Federalism (Republicans)--though because all politics are local, that's not even very well defined. We like to paint the parties as stereotypes of the extreme of each: Republicans as bitter people clinging to guns or religion and afraid of those who aren't like them, Democrats as arugula eating elitists dangerously in bed with lunatic anti-democratic socialists. But the stereotypes aren't true.

But once you drill past the two party caucus system in Congress, individual politicians vote for or against bills depending more upon the voters who sent them there. It's why the first attempt to pass the Reform bill failed--it failed largely because Democrats and Republicans voted against the bill despite being strong-armed by their parties. It's also why in 2005 with a Republican President, a near supermajority Republican control of the House, control of the Senate, and 7 out of 9 supreme court justices appointed by Republican Presidents did not and could not overturn Roe v. Wade: if you subscribe to the notion that the Republicans are a single mind about issues, Roe v. Wade should have been toast in 2005. But the reality is there were more than enough pro-choice Republicans in Congress and in the Supreme Court to make overthrowing Roe v. Wade a numerical impossibility--because the people who put them there are pro-choice.