|
|
|
|
|
|
by Groxx
2132 days ago
|
|
|
Worth noting that Wikipedia uses Canada as its first example of "disadvantages" of the system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting#Dis... But yes, Canada has soldiered on remarkably well in spite of it. USA used to be multi-party as well, the transition to 2-party takes time and there's nothing that truly guarantees it, just innately encourages. There are ways to slow it down / isolate sections... but the dominant parties can also whittle away at those over time. |
|
|
For example, the Conservative Party of Canada:
- formed from a merger between Progressive Conservative Party - and the Canadian Alliance
Of which, the "Canadian Alliance" appeared entirely from grass roots.
It started with the Reform Party, where the PC party lost all but two seats, but the new "Reform" party obtained significant seats:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_Canadian_federal_election
Which then morphed into the Alliance Party:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Canadian_federal_election
Which then, after the merger, with what was left of the PCs, formed the minority:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Canadian_federal_election
And then formed the government:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Canadian_federal_election
It should be noted that the merger between the older PC party, and the reform/alliance party was with the Alliance party at massive strength, in the House of Commons with a respectable number of seats, and 100% in charge of the future of the merged party.
My point here is ; the willingness for people to embrace new parties, new ideas, and vote for people .. not parties, helps with real political renewal in Canada.
Further, while some provinces aren't, most are MORE dynamic than the federal level at party change. Take Quebec, which has had new parties appear and then even form governments, in a period of two election cycles.
FPTP does NOT mean 2 parties. At all.