[skeletal88]

It is because your congress and political system don't need coalition governments orvaby kind of agreements, winner takes it all. A true multy party system wpuld be mote flexible and less prone to catering to extremes on the left or right

[sigwinch]

Israel has such a system. Netanyahu is aloft because of a small, fringe party.

[sarchertech]

A multiparty systems has some advantages. But it also has flaws and it wasn’t able to stop Brexit.

And I don’t think a multiparty system would have been able to stop the rise of Trump all else being equal equal.

[Maken]

The UK Parliament was by all means a two-party system, with Labour in one side and the Tories in the other. If anything it has become more diverse post-Brexit. Compare that with the Bundestag, where no party has more than a quarter of the seats.

[sarchertech]

There were 7 major political parties in Germany in 1933, so I’m unsure that there is overwhelming evidence that more than 2 political parties is protective against extremism.

[tokai]

There wasn't 7 major parties. Five maximum, even two could be argued. But '33 Germany is a weak argument against multiparty systems. Interwar Germany was not a well functioning democracy at all. They had armed street fights and deep political chaos going on for over two decades at that point. Hitler didn't have the majority and formed a coalition government. Only because Hindenburg agreed to dissolve the Reichstag could the nazis take power fully.

So the number of parties did actually block Hitler, and Presidential powers to subvert democracy was the problem. In modern multi party democracies an inability to form a government will result in a new election, not installing a dictator.

[sarchertech]

The Communist Party, the Social Democratic Party, the German Democratic Party, the Center Party, the German People's Party, the German National People's Party, and the Nazi Party.

Germany is the best argument multiple people in this thread made for how a multiparty system prevents the move towards extremism, but we are within living memory of Germany collapsing into what was arguably the worst case of extremism in history.

Of course there were special circumstances at play. Democracies don’t tend to collapse into dictatorship when things are going great. But the multiparty system did nothing to prevent it.

By the time Hindenburg agreed to dissolve the Reichstag, the SA was powerful enough compared to the German Military and he had enough popular support that he could likely have taken power by force.

If a charismatic demagogue gains enough popular support, no constitution, multi party system, or separation of powers etc can stop him.

You could maybe argue that a demagogue is less likely to rise in a multi party system, but I haven’t seen any empirical evidence to support that.

[cylemons]

1933 Germany was already a failed state, you shouldn't infer anything from that.

[sarchertech]

Germany is the best argument multiple people in this thread made for how a multiparty system prevents the move towards extremism, but we are within living memory of Germany collapsing into what was arguably the worst case of extremism in history.

Of course there were special circumstances at play. Democracies don’t tend to collapse into dictatorship when things are going great. But the multiparty system did nothing to prevent it.

If a charismatic demagogue gains enough popular support, no constitution, multi party system, or separation of powers etc can stop him.

You could maybe argue that a demagogue is less likely to rise in a multi party system, but I haven’t seen any empirical evidence to support that.

[skeletal88]

The uk doesnt really count, because it also has a fttp election system for the parliament, there are always 2 big parties and then some minor ones. Better example would be Germany.

[sarchertech]

There were 7 major political parties in Germany in 1933, so I’m unsure that there is overwhelming evidence that more than 2 political parties is protective against extremism.

[radiator]

It seems you wish for a system which would be able to stop Brexit against the will of the people.

[sarchertech]

Maybe a system where more than a simple majority in a single popular poll is required to make monumental policy decisions.