Hacker News Reader

Comment by Felz | Hacker News Reader

We're not constitutionally a two party country, so the solution as described in the article does not seem to apply.

Not constitutionally, but by using single member districts and our current voting algorithm, the equilibrium is two parties. So we are a de facto two party state.

It’s First Past The Post that forces the two party system. Get rid of that, STV is what will bring lasting change and reduce the the tendency for the two major parties to be exaggerated opposites of each other.

For the presidential elections approval voting would be more appropriate, for local representatives proportional representation is the important part for which you don't really need STV (although I guess voting for political parties with proportional representation is somewhat similar to STV with a predetermined set of preferences).

> It’s First Past The Post that forces the two party system. Get rid of that

Why? Two party system is a feature, not a bug.

But then I look at Canada, or the UK. These are single member districts, with first past the post elections, and they have multiple parties, including regional parties. The US doesn't have anything like that.

There's something more going on in the US.

In practice i’d consider the UK a 2 party state as well. FPTP basically results in either Labour or Conservatives leading government. The other parties are geographically limited. Eg the Scottish Party cannot win outside of Scotland, same for the 2 Irish parties, and although LibDems should not be geographically limited, in reality you can almost consider them the London party.

Go check the Dutch or Belgian systems. They have proportional representation and our (NL) current government is a coalition of 4 parties. (Yes, it moves slower, but also results in a more nuanced government and more gradual change)

The requirement of parliamentary systems to form a government lets some smaller parties have a look-in, since they can get concessions from the large parties to agree to join a coalition. Without that, a smaller party has no leverage.

But the UK is the classic two party system that Washington warned against.

The American two party system is less limiting than it sounds. Bill Clinton shifted the Democratic Party and Trump is shifting the Republican Party. In practice the parties don't define the candidates, the candidates define their party.

While not covered in the article, it's likely that the same process works with more than two participants, as long as one makes the partitioning and some other one (adversary) freezes one district; so A partitions, B freezes one and partitions again, C freezes one and partitions again, A freezes one and partitions and so on while there are districts.

We're also not constitutionally a lot of things that we do all over the country (e.g. discriminating based on race, gender, sexual preference, etc; presidential power to wage war through executive orders; and more!)

Should this not work with the two “parties” being the incumbent party vs any number of opposition parties?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com