The electronic New York Times has commentary from five individuals on whether the U.S. would benefit from strong political parties other than the Democratic and Republican Parties. Three of the writers say “yes”; two of them say “no.” The material does not appear in the print edition of the Times.
It is ironic that the piece by a Canadian law professor, Gregoire Webber, thinks the United States is better off with only two strong political parties. Canada is in the middle of an election campaign with three major parties, any one of which could potentially elect the next Prime Minister, yet Webber makes no mention of this. Thanks to Theresa Amato for the link.
You are correct. However, historically Canada has had two dominant parties, with other parties on the peripheries, as is also true of the UK. That has changed in the past few years with the collapse of the Progressive Conservatives, to be replaced by the Alliance (not-Conservative Party). That created a realignment on the right. Now, the Liberal Party is on a similar trajectory, probably to be replaced by the NDP. I just mean to say that, longterm, Canada IS a two-party system, but is simply now going through a realignment. The same thing happened in the UK when the Labor Party replaced the Liberal Party, and in the US when the Republican Party replaced the Whig Party. The system of first-past-the-post voting, a remnant of our British heritage, tends to produce stable either-or choices.
Sorry for another typo. I meant to say “now-Conservative Party.”
ANY media and political *scientists* in the U.K., U.S.A. and Canada every heard about Proportional Representation ??? — around since the 1840s — repeat 1840s.
— to represent ALL voters.
The New Age IGNORANCE level about basic election law refroms is beyond belief.
—
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.