posted by gut
People keep saying that, but there's no evidence that 3rd/multiple parties would make things any better. Most of the countries in Europe have multiple parties, and are more socialist and running larger deficits than the US.
No, the solution is to get rid of the incumbents who don't do the job. The problem is not that America doesn't have a 3rd party, the problem is it doesn't hold its politicians accountable.
Here's why I think more than two parties makes that a more realistic option, though:
With our two parties, at least in the current climate, how does that typically go? How does one hold politicians accountable?
They usually vote in a candidate from the other party.
What happens when the candidate from the other party ALSO doesn't do the job? We end up playing a game of hot potato with the candidates, and the campaigns end up just pointing out how the other's track record makes them less likely to do the job.
As it stands, if the incumbent hasn't done the job, I have exactly one response in a general election: vote for the one other guy. What if I don't have any confidence in the other guy's ability or willingness to do the job? I end up playing the, "Well, at least X is not Y" game.
More than two candidates doesn't inherently solve that problem, but it provides more options, which inevitably increases the possibility that I believe ONE of the people up for office will do the job.
With only two parties, though, many are forced into the notion that if they wish to vote for 'not A', they must vote for 'B'. We essentially force ourselves into an unnecessary dichotomy, and one that provides us with basically one question: Which is better, the poison you know or the poison you don't?