Are you against the two party political system?
The main problem with this is that not every public policy issue comes down neatly into two completely opposite alternatives. Quite often there is a spectrum of options. Two party systems do have a tendency to leave some alternative viewpoints out in the wilderness.Two party systems also tend to lead to countries being yanked back and forth from one direction to the other as parties win and lose elections. Nations with shifting coalitions of multiple parties tend to stay on a more steady course.
Would a 3 (or more) party system be better than a two-party system in the United States?
We really do not have “two parties.” They appear to be binary (and in some narrow sense they are), but each party is actually a mostly uneasy collaboration, or coalition, of various sub-groups that can and do change over time. For example: time was when the so-called Democratic Party was firmly in favor of segregation. Lyndon Johnson, son of the South, made the first moves to develop an ongoing coalition with black (Negro, back then) voters. He did it knowing that making the strategic move would cost the party a lot, in the short run. But the payoff came to fruition in the person of Barack Obama.The stress of the Presidential nominating process (now almost entirely out of the hands of party officials) threatens to split the coalitions within the Democratic party—ultra-liberal identity-grievance politics versus the Pelosi/Biden wing of old-timers. And Bernie Sanders is sort of like a tapeworm inside the body of the party…getting something out of the party without giving much (if anything) back.Multiple parties work best in parliamentary systems, such as Britain or Germany…but this country, on either the state or federal levels, has had virtually no experience in organizing a government by coalition—the coalitions are WITHIN the parties.So, no—not better. But certainly three or four or more parties would be more entertaining.
Is it true Hitler had a 90% approval rating?
Hitler had high approval ratings because he used the politics of fear, hate and lies, similar to right wing conservative parties in the US today. He went after the Jews, and in the 1930's no one liked Jews not even in America. It was a way to blame all their domestic and international problems on someone else. Today, the Muslims are the latest religion/ethnic group to be denounced publicly. No one seems to care about Muslims being tortured, rounded up or killed. Whenever a political figure or a political party uses hate, fear, and lies to promote their ideas, you know that you are heading down the same path.
Politicians & political parties have historically low approval ratings - what does this tell you?
Despite widespread dissatisfaction with job performance, politicians and political parties keep winning reelection. Bush left office with a 22% approval rating - the lowest of any president in American history. Obama's approval rating is hovering around 40% - the lowest of any modern president at this point in his presidency. Congressional Democrats and Republicans have approval ratings in the 30s. Yet they all keep winning. The two-party system persists. Why? Because the American people don't elect politicians... corporations do. The problem started in 2000 with the appointment of George Walker Bush by the SCOTUS. But the Citizens United ruling made the situation much worse. Corporations now have grossly disproportionate power. They effectively choose our politicians, and they always chose pro-business puppets who will do as they're told. It's become so bad that even independently wealthy candidates can't win. You have to be endorsed by the powers-that-be. You have to be indebted to corporate America. You can't make it on your own, that's too risky. You have to be beholden to the 1%, otherwise you're a wildcard. It's not as if Americans are ignorant to the problem... it's that Americans are powerless to change it.
Will technology take down the de facto two party system in the U.S.?
Yes, possibly, based upon several factors that, together, could trigger a change:The very low rating of Congress in the opinion polls, around 10% approval.The desperation of the voters as evidenced by the selection of a very unlikely candidate for president.Very high wealth inequality leading to the “purchase” of candidates and thus government, an oligarchy/plutocracy.The two party system becoming a one party system, or corprate-ocracy, and then fascism.Wage enslavement of the poor and middle-class with little chance of upward mobility.The technical feasibility that the internet could allow a direct vote on a law, parts of a law, or even a word in a law.The fact that this voting could be advisory at first and thus less threatening to the established processes.See the details at A Government You Can Love
Is it true that Trudeau has worse approval ratings than Trump?
Yes, and no.Some polls have Trudeau’s rating below Trump’s, depending on what poll you are using to measure Trump’s approval.But there is a significant difference between the two systems that has to be taken in to consideration; The US is (essentially) a Two Party System, Canada is a multi-party System.So while the US polls (generally) can be interrupted be understood as a Dems vs Pubs, the same polls in Canada would have to take in to consideration The Liberals, The Tories, The NDP, The Greens, The Bloc, The PPC and a few other smaller parties. Each of these parties give the voters an option “other than Liberal” and cause an artificial dip in Trudeau's rating vs Trump’s.So if we look at the CBC’s current polls.CBC News Canada Poll TrackerWe see that the Tories are at 36.1%, the Liberals at 36.1%. In the US system, this would be a tie and the end of the conversation.However, we also see that the NDP are at 16.1%, the Green Party at 8.4%, the Bloc at 4.5%, the PPC at 2.2% and “others” at 1.2%.If Canada were a two party system, the Polls would very likely look quite different. The NDP, Green and Bloc voters would almost certainly vote Liberal, giving them 56.1%, which would translate in to a Majority Government the likes of which I don’t think has ever been seen in Canada.Far more people in Canada support more Liberal views than Conservative.However, given our First Past the Post system and Riding distribution, (Which the US doesn’t have to contend with) the Tories would win a (likely) Minority Government if the election were held tomorrow.This said, October is still a long way off, and as the PPC get their election machine started, I strongly suspect they will begin to draw votes away from the Tories.
Which party system is particularly useful for a democratic state?
Your question is phrased somewhat confusing. I’m going to assume by party system you refer to Republican or Democrats, etc. Also that you are meaning a Democratic Nation State when you say democratic state.If the above assumptions are true then yes and no. Yes because a multi-party system is the best way to ensure there is no one special interest able to dominate others and make the system unfair. Of course we are really talking about a Republic however as a “Democracy in its pure sense is not representative but rather citizens interacting directly with government being involved with every decision and is essentially impractical until technology provides a way and the populous is motivated and informed to do so.The party system is not good if you happen to look toward the US as an example(and please don’t). The reason is that we are essentially a two-party system which is counter-productive. Having only two parties who are ever able to have real influence has led us to an awful division amoung our population and it just gets worse over time. Every year new fiercely defended and polar opposite issues are takin by each side with no viable third option being presented or listened to if it is.
Is Republican strategist Mary Matalin right that the "two-party system is ready to fail?"
The issue in the US: congress has a very, very, low approval rating because it represents voters poorly and that is accompanied by low voter participation. I see that as a failure of the two party system and would support a move towards proportional representation and/or increased use of Citizens' assemblyWhat I think is more immediately likely: we will see a realignment of the two major parties with blocks from each going to the other. Proportional representation can be done on a state and municipal level. Cambridge, Massachusetts already has it. Libertarians have never signed onto proportional representation. In the US right now, it is a minor, left issue. I think it should be a higher priority, but that is where things are now. Until that changes the two party system may be unstable and corrupt but will persist.If Libertarians signed onto proportional representation(which was largely invented by one of their founders John Stuart Mill) then I think we’d have majority support of PR in several states. Right now, they persist in a fantasy they can replace a major party in the two party system. Under PR, I think the LP might get 15% of congress, and the Greens, Social democrats would have at least 35% between them. More on the fault lines in US politics here:http://www.people-press.org/2014...The Pew Research suggests Libertarians are becoming a less reliable GOP constituency.