[eptcyka]

In my humble opinion, this is partly why most modern democracies have reduced themselves into two party theater. Much more time is spent arguing optics and deciding who's truly the scotsman in the current crop of leaders than what policies are best suited to achieve goals the electorate might be interested in reaching.

[mind-blight]

The two party system is usually a side effect of first past the post voting systems. Since elections only allow voters to choose one candidate, a third party candidate end up splitting the vote and taking votes away from the candidate who is closest to their political stance.

People see that and decide the rational choice is to vote for the candidate that they hate the least with the highest chance of driving, and third parties merge to form coalitions that actually have a chance of winning. Rinse and repeat until you only have two parties. (CPG Grey did a great video on this https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo)

Check out Ireland for how to set up a voting system that doesn't converge to two parties

[valarauko]

> third parties merge to form coalitions that actually have a chance of winning. Rinse and repeat until you only have two parties.

I would suggest that this probably isn't the case. Since there is no requirement for a majority vote share in first past the post, the same results can be achieved by splitting parties. The parties have more targeted appeal, just enough to squeak past the other parties. This is the case in India, for example.

[dragonwriter]

> I would suggest that this probably isn't the case.

It is; both the theoretical and empirical support for this being the effect of FPTP is overwhelming.

> They can be acheived by splitting other parties, but while Party A can choose to form a superparty eith Party B, it can’t choose to durably split Party C instead. Parties in FPTP will, to the extent that they can get away with it, funnel support to minor party candidates that will split the vote of their major opponent, but that’s a short-term tactical rather than long-term strategic maneuver.

> The parties have more targeted appeal, just enough to squeak past the other parties. This is the case in India, for example.

It’s really not, though India is complicated by being a federal system (which means a bunch of different electoral area with different and interacting party systems) and being in the middle of a long realignment from, at the national level, a dominant-party system under Congress (and looks a lot like at least temporarily to a dominant party system under BJP, again at the national level.)

[CodesInChaos]

> why most modern democracies have reduced themselves into two party theater

Is that true? It's certainly not the case in Germany, where we have ~6 relevant parties at the moment. I'm pretty sure other European nations, like Italy, often form their governments from multi party coalitions as well.

In the US I'd primarily blame the way votes are counted (majority of majorities). I'd expect other parties to rise to relevance if a different voting system was used, e.g. parties getting seats in the house of representatives proportional to their votes, instead of composing it from the winners of the individual districts (or a hybrid, like in Germany).

[jean_tta]

Is it "most" or is it UKUSA?

France is not a two party theater and suffers from the same thing.

Germany is not a two party theater and suffers from the same thing.

[Zababa]

> France is not a two party theater and suffers from the same thing.

France was for a long time until recently though, the current situation is the exception.

[jean_tta]

When?

In 2012, when the top two candidates have ~50% of the votes & four candidates total are above 10%?

In 2007, when the top two candidates have ~50% of the votes & four candidates total are above 10% (note: note the same parties)?

In 2002, when the top two candidates have ~35% of the votes and the loss of the leading left wing candidate was blamed on too many different left wing parties fielding candidates and getting votes?

In 2002, when the top two candidates have ~45% of the votes & four candidates total are above 10%?

Same thing for 1995, 1988, 1981.

In the last US presidential election, the top two candidates got a combined 98.17% of votes. The next candidate got 1.18%. This is a completely different situation.

[Zababa]

Apart from 2002 and 2017, all the elections have been the incarnation at that time of the PS vs the incarnation at that time of the UMP.