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.
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.