Hacker News Reader

Comment by saba2008 | Hacker News Reader

saba2008·

On the other hand, two party system proved to be stable in long term, while ensuring rotation in government.

In what way is a two party system more stable than a multi-party system?

Multiparty system has failure mode, when one party balloons in size, either by aggressive use of populist rhetoric (NSDAP) or by merging several smaller parties (United Russia). At this point rest either have to unite (producing two party system), or become irrelevant (producing single party system, opening way to totalitarian or authoritarian regime).

So the two party system is the result of a failed multiparty system. This doesn't seem to be an advantage of the two party system. Also the two party system can balloon into a single party regime. We probably need a proper definition on "stable" here.

I would call it tempered (forced to compromise on it's nicer features, like representation, to save core ones, like turnover of power) rather than failed (when even core features are no longer present).

Even if you consider two-party system as failed multiparty one, it has advantage of being already past that bifurcation point. And, considering that alternative route is death of parliamentarianism, it's a nice advantage.

Yes, same failure can happen in two-party system, but chances are different - 'usurper' party has to fight against single opponent, rather than against multiple smaller ones. Question of 'whenever opposition can unite' is trivially true if opposition consists of single party.

you're gonna need a reference for that statement champ, cause that frankly doesn't pass the smell test.

You have COVID-19.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com