People Twitter

Basically a complete teardown and overhaul of the system. The biggest problem is that seats in congress are not proportioned representationally. For example, in the UK, if a particular party receives 5% of the vote, then roughly 5% of the seats in the House of Commons are assigned to members appointed by that party. In the US, if a party receives 5% of the vote, they get nothing. Additionally, the US is further hampered by the fact that we elect our president directly instead of going with a prime minister approach, where the minister is appointed by the party or party coalition that won the election. Because of this, there is a lot of pressure placed on voters in every election to vote for the candidate they hate the least, since if they don't, there's a good chance that the candidate they hate the most will become president.

If we had a representational vote, on the other hand, people could feel free to vote for whichever party most suited their political tastes, knowing that they will have a chance at being represented in the government that follows the election. Often times, a single party doesn't win enough votes to have a majority in governments like this, so they have to cooperate with other parties to form a coalition government. In situations such as these, sometimes small parties can play a pivotal role. For example, in the 2017 UK general election, the number of seats needed to secure a majority was 326 (650 seats total, need more than 50%), but the Conservatives only managed to get 318 seats. They were able to team up with the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), however, who had gotten 10 seats in the election to form a Conservative-DUP coalition government. So the people who voted for DUP in that election got some extra concessions from the new government because the Conservatives needed them.

Because the US system is an all-or-nothing affair, where we are concerned only with someone winning a plurality rather than a majority of the votes, it necessarily will degrade into a 2-party system over time no matter how many parties you start with. It's just a mathematical reality. For example, imagine you have 6 parties, and the vote breakdown is as follows:

• Party A: 38% of the vote
• Party B: 32% of the vote
• Party C: 12% of the vote
• Party D: 11% of the vote
• Party E: 5% of the vote
• Party F: 2% of the vote

In this situation, voters would quickly realize that party F doesn't have a chance to win going forward. So they're more likely to vote for a party that doesn't align as well with their politics, but that actually has a chance of winning in future elections. Maybe they give their votes to Party C, for example. Over time, this effect is carried out again and again, and the numbers of people who vote for the two biggest parties reach a sort of equilibrium, with all of the other parties dying out or having next to no votes. Because the people voting for Party F get nothing if their candidate loses, they are heavily incentivized to settle. So, in effect, our current political situation is a result of the systems we chose, and their effect on game theory.