Would the US be better off with a multi-party system?

[Chief Justice Keef]

I heard from a lot of people this election that they were disappointed with not only the candidates, but the direction a lot of the parties took (the Democrats moved towards identity politics/social liberalism with Hillary's campaign, and the Republicans moved towards anti-establishment rhetoric with Trump's campaign). Many younger Americans, especially Bernie voters, feel like both parties don't represent their interest.

My question is, would the United States be better off if there were several major political parties on both the left and right rather the the two big Democratic and Republican institutions? If this meant changing our voting system to something like mixed-member proportional or single transferable vote,  would more people want to vote?

[Vosem]

Yes. Something along the lines of Australia or New Zealand, with two large (but at least theoretically replaceable) parties having to deal with minor parties to pass legislation would be ideal. A pure multi-party system, like the Netherlands or Israel, would not be desirable.

[Blue3]

No it would further erode accountability. The two parties can absorb 3rd party movements anyways, it's not like they're shut out.

[Slander and/or Libel]

The only difference, practically, is that we form our governing coalitions before the election rather than after. But the fact of the presidency presents a strong inducement for there to be only two parties, because the population has to elect the president nationwide (sort of).

[pbrower2a]

Multi-Party system? Not in our first-post-the-post system, our Presidential republic. We would need a Parliamentary system to have relevant third, forth, and fifth Parties. A fifth Party could easily be the "Knights Party", the political arm of the KKK. Does anyone want a coalition involving the KKK or the Communists? 

[Enduro]

Yes, but I may be biased.

[RINO Tom]

We practically do, they just have to work together before the candidates are chosen, as another poster said.  Democrats and Republicans are far from monolithic, and those who answer poll questions monolithically are just engaging in group-think and tribalism.

I've witnessed it with my own parents, who I love very much and respect and think the world of.  Within just 15 years, their *tones* as Republicans have noticeably changed, all in the name of hating the Democrats.  We've witnessed some red avatars here go from chastising Republicans as heartless a*sholes who don't care about the poor and unfortunate to chastising Republicans for being too poor, rural and unfortunate, LOL.  All in a span of a decade or less.  There will always be a segment of each party that just thinks "I'm a ____, so I hate what those evil ____s believe!!", but I think there is still a lot more ideological diversity in the parties than polls show or definitely our politicians show.

[ApatheticAustrian]

without the electoral college, the two parties would have imploded/fractured long ago, imho.

[kyc0705]

Multi-Party system? Not in our first-post-the-post system, our Presidential republic. We would need a Parliamentary system to have relevant third, forth, and fifth Parties. A fifth Party could easily be the "Knights Party", the political arm of the KKK. Does anyone want a coalition involving the KKK or the Communists? 

Generally speaking, most multi-party democracies specifically avoid forming coalitions with extremist parties.

[ApatheticAustrian]

you are thinking too much about israel/italy.

such fates can easily be avoided.

and do you really think, the official alt-right-party would have gotten as many vote as "the party not really rejecting the alt-right but not alt-right"?

[Hnv1]

The size and diversity of the US would make it an unmanageable system of sector parties and regional parties

[ag]

You cannot just decree a multi-party system. To get there you would have to change the government and electoral systems first. Under the current constitution, anything other than a two-party system can only exist as a short-term transition state. Those two parties do not have to be called "Democratic" and "Republican", but, whatever they are called, there can only be two.

[Slander and/or Libel]

You cannot just decree a multi-party system. To get there you would have to change the government and electoral systems first. Under the current constitution, anything other than a two-party system can only exist as a short-term transition state. Those two parties do not have to be called "Democratic" and "Republican", but, whatever they are called, there can only be two.

Right. Just because the system militates toward that, not because anybody designed it that way or anything.

[mvd10]

The Netherlands has a multi-party system and it gave us DENK, a party which wants to ban the word ''allochtoon'' (a Dutch term for foreigners with a rather negative connotation), a pensioners party called 50PLUS (they are currently polling higher than our mainstream centre-left social democratic party with their 4 post war prime ministers) and the Partij voor de Dieren (an animal rights party).

I agree with figs btw.

[Kingpoleon]

Probably, but I'm biased against the duopoly.

[Pericles]

Yes. Something along the lines of Australia or New Zealand, with two large (but at least theoretically replaceable) parties having to deal with minor parties to pass legislation would be ideal. A pure multi-party system, like the Netherlands or Israel, would not be desirable.

[I’m not Stu]

Multi-Party system? Not in our first-post-the-post system, our Presidential republic. We would need a Parliamentary system to have relevant third, forth, and fifth Parties. A fifth Party could easily be the "Knights Party", the political arm of the KKK. Does anyone want a coalition involving the KKK or the Communists? 

No, I don't want a KKK or communist coalition. Golden Dawn has a coalition in Greece.

[Mike67]

Yes the US would be much better off in a Multi-Party System

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

One thing this would definitely improve is state governance. Far too many states exist as one party regimes with the result that these parties become corrupt and complacent. Yes, it's partially because of the nature of racial polarisation in many states, but not always.

[RINO Tom]

I would at least have a lot of fun watching which types of parties emerge in such a system in this country.  I think it'd be cool if the parties that came to exist in such a system weren't the stereotypical factions we hear about within our two parties now, as that'd be boring.

[Famous Mortimer]

A multi-party system would make little difference. Switching to a parliamentary system would make a huge difference and would be better I think, but it's not realistic.

[Dancing with Myself]

Yes we need at least 1 or 2 more major parties.

A center based party would be perfect because a lot of people I know (myself included,) don't like either party. A majority of the Democrats I know of besides the kids my age were disgusted with Hillary and how the Dems behaved and worked their campaign. They didn't like the liberal based nature of the Dems. Most Republicans I know were fine with Trump though; they just hated the Republicans for not supporting him.

Imagine Trump running under a center based party this year with the same plans and ideas? It could have been something else.

The Reform Party was our best chance of having a center based party but Perot ruined it by not letting it be that.

[Mike67]

Yes we need at least 1 or 2 more major parties.

A center based party would be perfect because a lot of people I know (myself included,) don't like either party. A majority of the Democrats I know of besides the kids my age were disgusted with Hillary and how the Dems behaved and worked their campaign. They didn't like the liberal based nature of the Dems. Most Republicans I know were fine with Trump though; they just hated the Republicans for not supporting him.

Imagine Trump running under a center based party this year with the same plans and ideas? It could have been something else.

The Reform Party was our best chance of having a center based party but Perot ruined it by not letting it be that.

I could see a Right Wing Conservative Party,Nationalist-Populist Party,Center Right Party,Liberal Party,Labor Party and Socialist Party

[Lief 🗽]

you are thinking too much about israel/italy.

such fates can easily be avoided.

and do you really think, the official alt-right-party would have gotten as many vote as "the party not really rejecting the alt-right but not alt-right"?

No, but the center-right party would have required the alt-right party's support to govern, so in the end the result would not have been all that different.

[Heisenberg]

Not in our system of Congress (coalitions too hard) and history of dualism. If t were to happen, ranked choice voting is the way to go.