[JonSkeptic]

Agreed. I think having more than two parties to choose from would resonate with many Americans.

Currently we have only to choose between a douche and a turd. It would be nice to at least get different shades of douche and turd to pick, and who knows, we may get to pick something that isn't horrible.

[kghose]

Unfortunately there is no good solution. I followed Indian politics for a while, and the danger of multi-party elections is the dreaded 'coalition' where a bigger, more mainstream party, in an effort to come into power, will align with a smaller, more extreme/fringe party. In this manner extremist views start to gain ground, and gain influence beyond what the simple vote gave them.

[pgeorgi]

One of the reasons why in Germany there's a 5% quorum to enter parliament. The only downside is that your vote is lost if you happened to vote for one such party.

That could be fixed by a preferential system similar to what's in Australia (if the first pick is <5%, take the second, ... repeat until all votes are accounted for in a party that's actually present).

The current power dynamics are in favor of large parties (people voting for the a "safe" party that is the closest to them, instead of risking to lose their vote), so it's unlikely to change.

[ronaldx]

Indian politics - at least the Lok Sabha - follows a FPTP system which largely forces politicians to coalesce into a two-party system (in this case, a two-coalition system).

In most of Europe, PR systems tend to avoid permanent coalition.

[Svip]

That being said; most European governments are formed by coalitions. But they are seldom the same. And of course, PR is not perfect, there will be some coalitions where small fringe parties do get a larger say than they should. But is not very common.

In Denmark, often we form minority governments (that is a government formed from fewer mandates than half the parliament), but usually with a 'support party'. This support party is sometimes ignored, because they are likely too fringe to have the actual government, and thus reaching across the aisle is necessary.

[jbooth]

Doesn't the game theory for this sort of always point to the last, smallest member to join the coalition gets to make the most demands relative to it's size?

If it's get my party with it's 4 seats on board or fail and hold new elections, I can make demands way in excess of what those 4 seats should get me, right? And then once the government's installed, why not just hold them hostage again?

I mean, assuming your parliamentarians have no sense of shame. Maybe that's my bias from watching American legislators.

[ronaldx]

In some circumstances, yes, but in general, no: game theory doesn't say that.

If the coalition's large parties have alternative small parties to choose from, the smallest party has to compete for entrance with the other smallest parties.

This 'reverse auction' makes it possible that a small party would end up with net 0 power when the right to govern is taken into account (could be itself negative).

An agreement that excludes a new election from being called should be possible at this point (e.g. Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition agreement).

The fact that we normally observe smallest members having outsized power might be explained by, e.g.: 1) Coalition in a two/three-party Westminster-style system tends to mean the third party is essential and doesn't have competition 2) Regression to the mean: we would observe this anyway if power in coalition was independent of party size.

[Svip]

Some of the support parties have tried that, and have been shut out, so the government reaches across the aisle on certain laws. Our previous government tend to do the budget with the opposition party rather than their support party, for these reasons. And the same with our current government.

The only problem is that if the government cannot find an agreement across the aisle, they have to go to their fringe support party. So the opposition always have to wager this when negotiating. If they don't want to find an agreement with the government, the result might be worse than a compromise. So it is an advantage to the government in negotiating positions sometimes.

[Ras_]

Makes sense. In Finland the only constant between parliaments seems to be the Swedish People's Party. One or two cabinet seats since 1979 (support ranging from 4.2 to 5.5%). They basically exist to maintain the Swedish language's position in Finland. Since their demands are predictable and relatively trivial, they end up in all combinations, even the current mongrel six-party coalition.

[disgruntledphd2]

@jbooth - possibly, it sometimes depends on the smaller party. In Irish politics, typically coalitions are formed with one large party and another smaller one. In some cases (a rightwing party known as the progressive democrats) they have been very effective, while in others (the Greens) they have been completely pointless.

Normally, the smaller parties take the blame for the decisions of the larger one, which is a facet of irish politics which I have never been able to understand.

[kfk]

If we stay in Europe, you can see what you just described in the last 70ish year of Italian history.

[devx]

That seems to happen anyway in US. A lot of extremists, especially in the Republican party.