Why do we have a two party system?

[timosman]

Ever heard of the good cop, bad cop routine?

[oyarde]

I prefer no parties as I guess it would take some power away from the communists .

[RonZeplin]

Ever heard of the good cop, bad cop routine?

Yeah, they both work for the same organization, The D&R party global crime syndicate.

[Anti Globalist]

We don't have a two party system. We have a one party system.

[r3volution 3.0]

Because we have a winner-take-all kind of electoral system, contra the European system of proportional representation.

That said, it makes no difference whatsoever as to the outcome.

Whether it is the GOP or a coalition of 75 like-minded parties which increases spending, spending increases.

[bv3]

We don't have a two party system. We have a one party system.

The majority perception distinguishes two parties, because that distinction occurs down stream from that one party but upstream from the rest of us.

Yeah, they both work for the same organization, The D&R party global crime syndicate.

Accurate, but truistic.

Ever heard of the good cop, bad cop routine?

Facile.

Because we have a winner-take-all kind of electoral system, contra the European system of proportional representation.

That said, it makes no difference whatsoever as to the outcome.

Whether it is the GOP or a coalition of 75 like-minded parties which increases spending, spending increases.

I think Rev 3 is closest to the truth. We have a two party system because faction inevitably manifests as such. Interests, perceived or actual, converge as well as contradict. In a government that is run by the numbers convergent interests will gradually, or may be cajoled to, coalesce into increasingly monolithic organizations. Eventually, I suppose, you wind up with just two (No matter how many there are nominally as in European Parliaments). I don't think this tendency can be avoided, it may be minimized by decentralization.

This process was expedited by the information revolution, its harbinger the technical revolution, and has been encouraged by propaganda all along.

Its a strange question, because the perceived fact is widely bewailed, yet strangely taken for granted.

[r3volution 3.0]

Eventually, I suppose, you wind up with just two (No matter how many there are nominally as in European Parliaments).

It's somewhat Darwinian.

If a legislative majority is required to govern, then there must be at least one majority party/coalition: else chaos and the system collapses.

And, if there's one, there are likely two, since the parties on the outside then have a strong incentive to combine.

It's the same in war (which, essentially, politics is).

[Swordsmyth]

It's somewhat Darwinian.

If a legislative majority is required to govern, then there must be at least one majority party/coalition: else chaos and the system collapses.

And, if there's one, there are likely two, since the parties on the outside then have a strong incentive to combine.

It's the same in war (which, essentially, politics is).

But at least with proportional representation the minor parties can switch sides in order to get deals to see their priorities happen.

Why not give each Rep. multiple votes?

[bv3]

It's somewhat Darwinian.

If a legislative majority is required to govern, then there must be at least one majority party/coalition: else chaos and the system collapses.

And, if there's one, there are likely two, since the parties on the outside then have a strong incentive to combine.

It's the same in war (which, essentially, politics is).

This is almost exactly what I was trying to say.