The US two party system isn't that obviously broken. Americans like to say it's broken, but they often aren't that familiar with the alternatives.
You could have FPTP but with more than two parties, like the UK does. The downside of this is that the reason there are more than two major parties in the UK is that the parties are much more closed off to outside influence, and due to the presence of a major independence movement (something banned by the Constitution). In the USA it's considered entirely normal and possible for complete outsiders to run in party primaries, take over that party and then become President. This cannot happen in the UK because none of the parties have open primaries. Small movements towards more internal party democracy by Labour have been rolled back in recent years, because they allowed in non-centrist types like Corbyn who were popular with the base but not with the electorate. Still, it could be implemented in the USA. "All" you need to do is end the system of party primaries and voting for President, to allow party insiders to select their own leadership. And if you want a big independence party then change the Constitution to allow cessation.
You could have PR, like most of Europe does. Then you'd have lots of parties. The downside of this is that it guarantees that politicians can never actually do any of the things they campaigned on doing, with the result that politicians tend not to take policy development seriously. Parties end up standing for extremely vague positions even during election campaign periods, knowing that there's no point in having specific ideas as they'll all be mashed up in coalition negotiations anyway. Because the system is in some sense inherently unstable you have a lot of government collapses, and the promised benefits of representing everyone's views better doesn't happen in reality. Instead what happens is that every party just ends up being at a different point on the 1D ideological spectrum, and all the left and "center" parties form coalitions against the right wing party to deny them any representation at all, even if it means the government becomes deadlocked and can't do anything.
Overall the US system isn't perfect, but it's also not the great weakness Americans like to claim it is. The two parties are sufficiently loose and broad tents that they shift with the political winds easily, and it means Americans are able to go in an "fix" the parties if they drift too far from what is actually wanted. A big part of the meltdown over Trump is that the party insiders were reminded of this against their will. A big part of the meltdown over Sanders vs Clinton was that Americans actually like this aspect of the system and the left felt it was being denied to them.
> The downside of this is that it guarantees that politicians can never actually do any of the things they campaigned on doing
That's a bold and total wrong claim.
> with the result that politicians tend not to take policy development seriously.
Ah that's why Europe is such a shithole and the US is an enlightened kingdom.
> Parties end up standing for extremely vague positions even during election campaign periods
That is just wrong. Parties often commit to specific things.
> Because the system is in some sense inherently unstable you have a lot of government collapses
That's why Angela Merkel was only in her position for 2 years.
> and the promised benefits of representing everyone's views better doesn't happen in reality.
Ill taking anyway, thanks very much.
> Instead what happens is that every party just ends up being at a different point on the 1D ideological spectrum
Again, that's just false. The represented views are way broader then what you get in other systems. Sure you don't have anarchist parties and Nazis but that's because those are minority views.
> left and "center" parties form coalitions against the right wing party to deny them any representation at all, even if it means the government becomes deadlocked and can't do anything.
That's a very, very broad generalization. And even if its the case, its not necessarily wrong. If 25% are far right wing and 75% are strongly against that far right wing, then that should be reflected in the government.
> Overall the US system isn't perfect, but it's also not the great weakness Americans like to claim it is. The two parties are sufficiently loose and broad tents that they shift with the political winds easily
Having 2 parties is the outcome of an election process that is fundamentally broken and sometimes its a legally enforced duopoly. To claim that isn't fundamentally broken in terms of translating broad popular views into government is simply wrong. The European system are also broken in various ways but they are far better.
> Ah that's why Europe is such a shithole and the US is an enlightened kingdom.
The USA is both richer and more democratic than Europe. You will need to accept this fact before mocking the Americans.
Europe is a place where most countries are partly run by Brussels, which is a totalitarian system. Consider the energy that Americans put into their Presidential elections vs the entirely secret and inexplicable process that led to von der Leyen being able to legislatively control Europe. People may not like Biden or Trump but they can at least explain the process through which they became President, and it is at least theoretically democratic. Nobody outside of Germany even knew who vDL was before she suddenly turned up as the most powerful woman in Europe.
> That is just wrong. Parties often commit to specific things.
Which nobody takes seriously because the best that can be hoped for is for the party to enter coalition, at which point everything is up for negotiation and they are guaranteed to have to discard many of their commitments.
>> Because the system is in some sense inherently unstable you have a lot of government collapses
> That's why Angela Merkel was only in her position for 2 years.
Merkel is an excellent example of the problem: after a deadlocked PR election she presided over an entirely mandateless caretaker government that lasted half a year, because German politicians couldn't form a workable coalition. In theory she was meant to do nothing during this time and simply preserve the status quo, but that is impossible to constitutionally enforce and in fact she continued to rule exactly as before, including signing Germany up for new foreign policy commitments.
The USA simply never has the problem of the previous president continuing to rule after losing support in an election. It is a problem largely unique to PR (the UK went through a coalition setup in 2010 but it only lasted 5 days).
> even if its the case, its not necessarily wrong.
The primary point of PR is to try and ensure the views of minorities are represented. If you disagree with that goal, you may as well just support the much simpler and more stable FPTP system.
I don't really want to get into a big argument. Government organization is a gigantic field with lots of questions and we would have to go into more detail. Both systems have lots and lots of issue. I don't like the EU and have no interest in defending it either.
> The USA is both richer and more democratic than Europe. You will need to accept this fact before mocking the Americans.
Politics and government organization has something to do with that, but not everything. If the US had the current government style after WW2 then they would be equally or more successful then they are.
If its more democratic is questionable on lots of fronts, specially comparing with individual countries and not the EU specifically.
And frankly GDP is one thing, I rather live in most places in Europe either way. And I much rather live in the richer parts of Europe then in the US and I much, much rather live in poor part of the Europe then the poor parts the US.
You could have FPTP but with more than two parties, like the UK does. The downside of this is that the reason there are more than two major parties in the UK is that the parties are much more closed off to outside influence, and due to the presence of a major independence movement (something banned by the Constitution). In the USA it's considered entirely normal and possible for complete outsiders to run in party primaries, take over that party and then become President. This cannot happen in the UK because none of the parties have open primaries. Small movements towards more internal party democracy by Labour have been rolled back in recent years, because they allowed in non-centrist types like Corbyn who were popular with the base but not with the electorate. Still, it could be implemented in the USA. "All" you need to do is end the system of party primaries and voting for President, to allow party insiders to select their own leadership. And if you want a big independence party then change the Constitution to allow cessation.
You could have PR, like most of Europe does. Then you'd have lots of parties. The downside of this is that it guarantees that politicians can never actually do any of the things they campaigned on doing, with the result that politicians tend not to take policy development seriously. Parties end up standing for extremely vague positions even during election campaign periods, knowing that there's no point in having specific ideas as they'll all be mashed up in coalition negotiations anyway. Because the system is in some sense inherently unstable you have a lot of government collapses, and the promised benefits of representing everyone's views better doesn't happen in reality. Instead what happens is that every party just ends up being at a different point on the 1D ideological spectrum, and all the left and "center" parties form coalitions against the right wing party to deny them any representation at all, even if it means the government becomes deadlocked and can't do anything.
Overall the US system isn't perfect, but it's also not the great weakness Americans like to claim it is. The two parties are sufficiently loose and broad tents that they shift with the political winds easily, and it means Americans are able to go in an "fix" the parties if they drift too far from what is actually wanted. A big part of the meltdown over Trump is that the party insiders were reminded of this against their will. A big part of the meltdown over Sanders vs Clinton was that Americans actually like this aspect of the system and the left felt it was being denied to them.