|
|
|
|
|
|
by bumby
1325 days ago
|
|
|
I don't know if I'd say there's a 'singular party in power' in the US either. It seems pretty common to have, for example, the White House governed by one party and the House by another. I wonder, too, if it's part of the primary voting process. We did away with the people in smoke-filled rooms selecting candidates, which seems great. But it also creates more polarized candidates which seems to constantly alienate voters. |
|
|
For each electable organization, in a two-party system, one of the parties is always in power. The different organizations in the US government (president/senate/house) are more like stages of decisionmaking with intricate interplay. They can be ruled by different parties, but any change of power within one of those organizations is always a full flip-flop within that "stage".
Contrast that to a multi-party system, where such an organization might have power split in ratios like 6:5:3:2. The party with representation of 6 still needs to cooperate with at least two of the others. Even if they lose votes and the 6:5 flips to 4:7, cooperating with the other parties tempers the rule of the new rising party, 4+3 is 7 and all that.
This means the system is much more likely to evolve into the parties making deals with each other and compromising, as opposed to the flip-flop between opinions A and B.