Well, USA has decided on a "pure" two-party system by setting up rules which
- favor two-party systems, like the single-seat, winner-takes-all districts
- further rules, like access to ballots, campaign financing
- plus some other stuff
For example, UK allows for some other parties through the mechanism that the
largest party forms the government, that is, not necessarily a 50% majority.
Same for those who have multy-party systems, based on proportional
representation, that is, a party who gets x% of votes gets x% of seats
in congress. (with many variations in how that is achieved)
That is, basically all nations except UK,USA and Canada.
Some of these "the rest of the world" nations had something resembling
a "two party" system in the 1700 and early 1800s, those who supported
the majority, president, King or whatever, and those who opposed it.
However, during the later part of the 1800s they all reformed both their
constitutions as well as election systems to at a minimum favor
multi-party system through proportional representationt.
That is, besides how election are arranged, votes counted,etc it is
a matter on how decisions are made in the parliaments, one house
or two houses, how a government, administration, prime minister,
president is decided on.
The Israeli party-list system:
I hope you noted the emphasize on _party-list_ systems, although there
is also other factors resulting in one of the most dysfunctional
systems in the world.
Btw, your example on "betting on the winners" is contrary to what
"the rest of world" sees as the foundation of democray, that is, the
right of every person to be represented in congress. The issue
of proportional representation, PR.
However, there is one case of PR in USA, the voting districts
should be manipulated to achieve proportional black representation
in congress, while they earlier were manipulated to
achieve the opposite. (that is, what one can call a
"pseudo democracy" by manipulation by committee) |
