[acc4everypici]

you've pointed out the problem with the contemporary american two party state.

it's a see saw of nobody does anything but blame their systemic rival

either USA party system gets more than two parties because they're on a steady stalemate, like other poster was saying, 35 years of gridlocked congress because of two way ties.

or look at china, my prediction is that soon enough a ballsy european monarchy is gonna go full-blown one-party democracy or something clever like that

[jfengel]

You can't pass legislation without a majority. Adding more parties won't make that easier. It just creates more rivals.

[batch12]

And temporary allies. Maybe with more than two parties we could move past the idea that the platform of one party has to be the exact opposite of the other on every issue. Then, maybe, not every effort would result in a gridlock. Perhaps a nice side effect could be that people stop seeing others who disagree with them as evil.

[jfengel]

It's hard to make progress with temporary allies. They're going to expect some kind of mutual benefit. That is easiest when you've got trust, and the belief that you will have my back in the future. It's hard to have faith in temporary allies, and less opportunity to make compromises and trade-offs.

It's far easier when your allies are long term. Which functions a lot like a single party even if you don't call it that.

[acc4everypici]

or maybe it gives a voice (i.e. political representation) to a larger pool of diverse people and communities?

[jfengel]

Sure. Lots of voices. No actual legislation (or listening), but plenty of talking.