Which democratic system is historically more successful, two-party

>>933961
Generally a two party system gets shit done, though the us is rapidly proving that wrong.

>>934232
That's because the president isn't a supreme dictator, there's a congress made up of both parties who have the right to stifle his decisions

Define successful.

With all the alternative factors in success, the differance between two and 3+ party systems is meaningless.

Most countries with two parties are multiparty systems that just change their party goals every decade or so.

>>933961
Two-Party usually gets more shit done, multi-party just form two coalitions anyways.

>>933961
Dominant-party system, actually.
There's just enough opposition to force the government to reconsider or co-opt policies once in a while, but not enough to interfere with good governance or threaten mid-long term plans.

Parties are against the idea of "demo" in the first place, it puts interests before people, which has the point since party in democracy first started

>>933961
A no party system which has safeguards to prevent parties from forming. Each parliament member should be elected on merit and not what colour ribbon they are wearing. This would mean that they would actually reflect the peoples views and not be so disconnected unlike the current state of the UK and US governments, which are effectively two party systems.