I have always felt that a third party has been needed in the United States, and I was just wondering what everyone else thinks. I was just saying this because when you get down to all today, it really is only about voting for the names and the party names than it is voting for people who have different agendas. I would like to see the Libertarian Party become that third party due to my anarchist tendencies; however, I do realize that some form of government will always exist -because theoretically anarchy is a form of government- and I would like to see a government that focuses on defending the individual and the nation, keep law and order, and provide a stable currency. That's just me though, I could be wrong and I welcome your opinion.
And if I did anything wrong, please excuse me for this is my first post here.
By way of a very simplified example: If a third party presidential candidate won by 34% of the vote, with the other two getting 33% each, then 66% of the population would not be represented. Actually, this is a real example and precisely what happened in the last gubernatorial race in Texas. The guy won with only 35% of the vote, or something like that (don't recall the exact percentage). The majority of Texans didn't want the guy back in office, but with a third party running, it assured his success. And it is unfortunate, too. The guy is a crook and liar and a fundamentalist.
I understand the desire for more options, but I don't see it really see it as a viable option for representation.
I agree that representation is beneficial, except for people I disagree with. : P
...then having multiple parties is in fact beneficial.
Please give me some examples of what you mean by beneficial.
The weigh off is between representation and effective government. Belgium has good representation, but not very effective government. US has weak representation, but effective government.
Representation - Political parties spanning a variety of viewpoints held by the population.
Effective government - There is always a majority in government.
Nope, that's the parlimentary system.
Checking Wikipedia, it seems that it is more commonly known as preferential voting.
In my country you can't win if you don't have a majority, which means that, in the case you mentioned, the top 2 parties or candidates go into a second tour of elections facing each other and no one else. That way one of them will have a majority.
Given that the US has more than two parties (right?), what would happen if both of them got around 49%? Would the leader win without a majority?