← Back to context

Comment by cyphar

5 years ago

The UK has two major parties. The fact that the LibDems were in a coalition government once due to a hung parliament (and the last hung parliament was in 1974) isn't really evidence that the UK has more than two major parties. A major party actually has a chance to have a plurality. I also hasten to point out that the LibDems currently have 11 seats (the SNP has four times as many).

Many European countries with non-FPTP systems have coalition governments all the time and there really are several viable major parties.

To be fair, preferential voting isn't a panacea (and arguably should be paired with multiple-representative electorates). Here in Australia we have instant run-off voting and there are still two major parties with even less crossbenchers than the UK parliament -- though our Senate does have a fair few independent and third-party candidates, likely because Senate seats aren't winner-takes-all (like electorate seats are for the House of Representatives). I think voter education is also partially to blame -- many Australians seem to not be aware of how preferential voting works.

> A major party actually has a chance to have a plurality.

I disagree - it's about influencing the policy narrative. It doesn't matter if you have plurality or not if you are getting things done.

The LD, the SNP, and the DUP (a tiny tiny party) all managed that recently in the UK.

A small party with large support somewhere like California could become king-makers in the US, and influence police, nominations, etc.