Multi-Party Systems: Better?

This blog is in reaction to Erin Harte’s blog titled RAWR.

Some people are frustrated by others not realizing there are other options for candidates out there, but I would argue that people who do realize that (like me, a political science major) also realize that our system makes it so that a third-party candidate has a next-to-no chance of getting elected.  

Some people (note: most of my friends) said they didn't like either Romney or Obama - and that includes myself; I voted for Gary Johnson. I usually don't go around announcing who I voted for, but I will say this: I knew by voting for Gary Johnson, my vote would essentially be a wash. I didn’t feel right voting for either candidate because I didn’t agree with their policies, and I didn’t want to say I helped vote in someone that was the shiner of two turds.

Our system favors a two-party system in a "first past the post" election schema. Meaning, the first candidate to reach 270 electoral votes wins – thus, it’s a "winner take all" system.

This is different from a multi-party system a lot of European countries have. Essentially each voter has "more of a say" because they vote for a direct percentage of representatives in their version of congress. Meaning if 85% of voters voted for party Z, party Z would have 85% of seats in congress. The remaining 15% would be divvied up among the other parties based on the exact percentage of votes cast in their favor. 

An advantage of a multi-party system is that there is a more diverse representation so people can find parties that are more aligned with their political ideologies, rather than the predominant two we have in the U.S.

This also pretty much assures rule won’t come from a single party, in which the regime could turn more authoritarian and it’s harder for legislation to pass through – and depending on your perspective, that can be an advantage or disadvantage.

However, this system does come with some disadvantages. It can be more complex for voters – they have to really think about their alignment, but again, that could be seen as an advantage. Having too many parties can greatly divide congress, creating so many agendas that nothing would ever get done – potentially even worse than the gridlock in Congress now.

In the U.S., I think the two party system really divides people on not what they agree on, but what they disagree on. You’ll often hear about what people don’t like about the other party. It’s easy to garner support for a certain party by making oppositional claims about the other party – which is exactly what I think happened in this past presidential election.

Which system is better? You tell me.