[konsptheory]

No autocratic one-party state does.

What makes you think that a two party system is drastically better?

The illusion of choice is way more dangerous and treacherous than blunt and in your face authoritarianism and despotism.

[Retric]

Primaries are generally far more meaningful in a two party system than a one party system. So people often get meaningful choice in a two party system.

Also of note, in some multi party systems like Britton a minority party’s can end up with vastly outstated control. EX: The largest party got < 37% of the vote but they are a clear majority right now. One party got 3.8% of the vote and got 1 seat another got 4.7% of the vote and 56 seats. http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/05/britain...

PS: You really can't design a voting system without clear downsides, but zero voting is clearly worse.

[drzaiusapelord]

Its not the number of parties, its the freedom and autonomy to challenge the incumbent party.

A two party state is as free as a 10 party state. Euro-style multi-party governments fall into 2 major parties with smaller, often extremist (racists, etc), smaller parties anyway. Because the two parties need to court these smaller parties for votes, minority views like racism, get majority exposure and unequivocal representation.

A one-party state isn't free at all. Its just old fashioned autocracy. A shade less than a total dictator.

[dragonwriter]

> Its not the number of parties, its the freedom and autonomy to challenge the incumbent party.

Without effective choice, which arguably is substantially lacking when the structural features that preserve duopoly is in place, there may be theoretical freedom to challenge the incumbent party, but there isn't necessarily real practical choice. This is evident when there are numerous policies that remain in place despite large majorities opposed (or which are not adopted despite large majorities in favor), which are frequently seen in the US system.

Duopoly results from structural features which obstruct effective democratic accountability, and which therefore produce a government which is not effectively accountable to the nominal electorate.

> A two party state is as free as a 10 party state.

No, its not, which is why "democracies" which few effective competitive parties also have measurably poorer satisfaction with their governments than those with more effective competitive parties: a state with only two viable parties is, while likely freer than one-party state, one with a government less accountable to the people -- and therefore one which is less ruled by and more ruling over the people -- than is the case in one which supports a multiplicity of competitive parties.

[drzaiusapelord]

Your comment ignores the existance of primaries and other democratic institutions that encourage political change. The US's constant shifting political winds is evidence that it does work and works well considering we are the sole superpower and saved "enlightened" nations like the various countries in Europe from killing themselves 70 years ago and keep aggressive autocratic powers like Russia and China from completely taking over their neighbors or starting WWIII.

[dragonwriter]

> Your comment ignores the existance of primaries and other democratic institutions that encourage political change.

No, it reflects the actual results of empirical study of democracies, notably that by Arend Lijphardt in Patterns of Democracy.

> The US's constant shifting political winds is evidence that it does work and works well

The poor satisfaction with government in the US and other limited-practical-choice democracies compared to democracies with more effective choice through the electoral system is evidence that it does not work in the judgement of the people actually subject to it as well as other democratic systems do.