USA has 2
Europe has multi
2006-09-30 16:41:00 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Multiple party systems have the drawback, especially in a parliamentary system, where coalition governments are the norm, as no one can gain a majority. Withdrawal of one party or another from such a government can lead to the collapse of that government.
In the US, which is not parliamentary, a multiparty system could lead to the complete paralysis of the Congress, where nothing could get passed...
On second thought, it's not a bad idea. Congressional paralysis would mean less damage those assclowns could do to the country.
2006-09-30 16:50:51 · answer #1 · answered by TheOnlyBeldin 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I agree with a multiparty system as well. A two party system kindof creates winners and losers. When voting for President about have of the voters lose. Even if one party has a slight edge in both Houses it dominates the legislation, so everyone that supports the other side loses. If you have a multiparty system the groups have to work together to get things accomplished. In America, working together is considered wimpy and unfaithful to your party. I am aware of the possibility that a multiparty system could backfire in a presidential election, with the least favored candidate winning. However, there is no need to have an executive branch that is as strong as it is. The US president has so much more power over the country than the European Heads of State have over theirs. It's time for the government to work for the people instead of the other way around.
2006-09-30 21:48:28 · answer #2 · answered by Shaqfan11 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The problem with a multi party system is it can make the least liked candidate actually win!
If we have 2 candidates opposed to the war & one candidate for the war, anti-war voters will be split between the two & supporters of the war will all vote for the one. So if 60% of voters are against the war, the two opposed to the war get 30% each & the war supporter gets 40%.
If you want to make a difference in our system, we need to all show up for primaries. Currently only the far right show up for the Republican primaries & the far left show up for the Democrat primaries. So the moderates don't stand a chance. If more moderates voted in primaries, we'd have more moderates in the November elections.
2006-09-30 17:50:47 · answer #3 · answered by Smart Kat 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Multi party, no question about it. In a multi party system, no one party (usually) will have a majority in the legislative body. Thus members of different parties have to be able to "play well with others " to get anything done (or create even more damage.
2006-09-30 16:47:17 · answer #4 · answered by bob h 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The United States now NEEDS a multi-party system, but you know the Republicans and Democrats are against a threat to their oligarchy.
*Fortunately,* we voters have the power to institute other parties into the mix. How? We can vote for their candidates in all elections.
Pretty simple, isn't it?
2006-09-30 16:49:04 · answer #5 · answered by wheezer_april_4th_1966 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That calls for an complete sale reformation of the electoral equipment. did you understand that our structure does no longer understand the party equipment? that's in elementary words through the Election fee, the political activities might want to be ruled. The fee in elementary words registers the political activities, on the concept of the vote percentage in the election. for my section, that's not elementary to abolish the multiparty equipment, in India, the position fairly some States with a variety of of multi lingual and ethnic identities.
2016-12-04 02:12:28 · answer #6 · answered by Erika 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Multi. More is better
2006-09-30 16:45:41 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think more options is better.
2006-09-30 16:48:31 · answer #8 · answered by Snuz 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋