The US is 2 parties by convention, not by design. They’ve worked together to entrench themselves to make it exceedingly difficult for a 3rd party to rise, last thing they want is for another farmer-labor party to form.
If a simple majority is required to rule, then logically two parties will form somewhere near 50% support. The fact that other parties have existed in the past is an exception to the logical conclusion of two party rule inherent in the design itself.
The US is a two parties system. You need to change your rules if you want anything different, not abstain from primaries.
Instead, the best place to talk about rule-changes is on your primaries.
I caught one!
The US is 2 parties by convention, not by design. They’ve worked together to entrench themselves to make it exceedingly difficult for a 3rd party to rise, last thing they want is for another farmer-labor party to form.
If a simple majority is required to rule, then logically two parties will form somewhere near 50% support. The fact that other parties have existed in the past is an exception to the logical conclusion of two party rule inherent in the design itself.
2 counterexamples off the top of my head: UK and Canada.
Those are parliamentary systems of government…
Yes, I’m aware. How does that materially change the outcome on the number of parties?