And there's no unity in the party, either. A California democrat could have more in common with a Missouri republican than his same-party counterpart. The democratic platform this year includes a number of promises that the presidential candidate does not agree with. The republicans did not publish a platform this year. It's essentially a directional signal more than any concrete unifying measure, a party-for-all-people-except-the-ones-we're-against.
If the democrats and the republicans are supposedly holding the union together, they're doing an absolutely awful job at it.
not being part of the Union != not cooperating
(although currently the EU is attempting to block all cooperation outside the bounds of the Union in an effort to keep the UK practically a member, but without voting rights)
I don't understand what evidence has led you to these conclusions.
It seems clear to me that both Trump and Sanders (outsiders / fringe movements) have had an immense impact on their respective parties, far more than they would have with a separate political party.
To use another example: the two party system ensures that everyone is in the same room and has to use one of two microphones to speak. Since there are limitations, everyone has to compromise: the establishment and the newcomers.
A multiparty system lets everyone have a microphone (which drowns out all the voices) or lets you simply go to a different room. Both don’t require much compromise and I don’t see either as effective for maintaining the union.
I suspect Sanders would have higher impact in a multi-party system, because apparently there is a group of maybe 30% of Americans who would be his fans and could vote for a progressive party under his leadership.
What I would really like to see is a comparison of the political systems, across different countries perhaps. To take an issue and compare how it was pushed through the different systems. I can't help it but today, EU seems more progressive (in the sense of trying to make life of citizens better) than the U.S. (and UK).
That’s where I disagree. I don’t think the percentage is anywhere near that high. Instead, I’d say that by latching onto the Democratic Party apparatus, his ideas have become far more popular and relevant in the party (and subsequently the country) than if he was running the Green/Libertarian party equivalent.
In the 2nd sentence, you're assuming exactly the conditions of the two party system. In Europe, new parties (like Greens or Pirates) were successfully able to bring new issues to the traditional political divide.
In a proportional system, California and the west coast is not pure blue or liberal or some new "independence party". Without even looking at numbers I'm sure California alone has as many or more conservative leaning voters than Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, Idaho, and the Dakotas combined, we just never see it thanks to our antiquated setup.
But I'm not sure why you think having more parties would make them more regionally split, they could (and arguably "should") be more interest and policy based, but still nationwide.
The federal government invading and re-establishing control, which they would be able to do with incredible ease.
>But this means that although there are many parties, there are still only two sides (practically) to chose from.
I believe you've answered your own question.
I generally agree with this take, but lately I’ve actually been considering the opposite: that the two-party system is the only thing truly holding the country together as a union. The two party system has two consequences: one, making the federal government more amenable to bottom-up change; and two, by making fringe movements morph themselves to fit into the federal structure, rather than simply exit and secede.
As an example, imagine that there were a “West Coast” party which had control over California, Oregon and Washington. In a multiparty system, what incentivizes them from not just declaring independence? At least by forcing them into Democrats or Republicans, they become unified with the rest of their party country-wide.