In the End There Can Be Only Two?

[eNtRopY]

I'm wondering if there is any way to demonstrate using Game Theory that in any democratic society the strategic political system will naturally relax into the bipartisanship.

Think about. Throughout natural and human history, all strategic games have eventually found stability in two (not three) sides.

Is there any room for a third party? I don't think so. Tell Nader to go home.

eNtRopY

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by eNtRopY
I'm wondering if there is any way to demonstrate using Game Theory that in any democratic society the strategic political system will naturally relax into the bipartisanship.

Think about. Throughout natural and human history, all strategic games have eventually found stability in two (not three) sides.

Is there any room for a third party? I don't think so. Tell Nader to go home.

eNtRopY

A two party system insures a majority. It's mob rule buddy!

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by eNtRopY
I'm wondering if there is any way to demonstrate using Game Theory that in any democratic society the strategic political system will naturally relax into the bipartisanship.

Think about. Throughout natural and human history, all strategic games have eventually found stability in two (not three) sides.

Is there any room for a third party? I don't think so. Tell Nader to go home.

eNtRopY

Starcraft!

Oh, and Nader isn't actually a member of the Green Party, as far as I know. He was just asked to run on their ticket by some California Greens.

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by eNtRopY
I'm wondering if there is any way to demonstrate using Game Theory that in any democratic society the strategic political system will naturally relax into the bipartisanship.

Think about. Throughout natural and human history, all strategic games have eventually found stability in two (not three) sides.

Is there any room for a third party? I don't think so. Tell Nader to go home.

eNtRopY

And so on from two party to a one party system. Which is so stable.

A factor worth remembering is that stability is not the only factor in political evolution. If it was, democracy, inherently the most unstable form of government, would never have gotten started.

Also, we do have plenty of contrary evidence. For example, the UK parliament is basically a triumvirate of Labour, Conservatives, and Lib Dems, and was before that Labour, Conservative and Whigs. In Germany, the power struggle is between the socialists, conservatives and the greens. Israeli elections are divided between the likud party, labour and the <insert name I forgot> party. Far more in countries with proportional representation. Cold war politics was divided between the US led alliance, the Communist powers (which can be further divided into Maoists and Stalinists, who later competed against each other), and the so called Third World of neutrals.

In reality, the mix of views around the population is the most deciding factor of the existence of various parties. IMHO, of course. I think any third party should be commended - simply from adding a bit of political freshness to the mix. A two party system tends to degenerate to the state where the two are more or less the same, and we get a lack of representation for many people's views.