The theory that makes most sense to me - not my theory - is that in a many-party system, the least successful parties tend to evaporate, their voters migrating to one or more of the more successful parties. Rinse and repeat and the number of parties tends to get smaller. The US is of course mainly but not exclusively a two-party system. How many main parties are there in other countries? And can anyone report on the tendency of parties in those countries to either increase, decrease, or remain the same?

For example, I am under the impression that European countries have active communist parties or did. Do they still, and why?

Small point. In the US is the Republican party and the Democrat party. The correct adjective for the Democrat party is not "democratic" but democrat. A common mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. There is no democratic party in the US, unless they both are - and both would claim to be. Nor are the two parties monolithic - far from it.

I'm not sure if I'd call it to become religionized. In a way it's the opposite, people who believed in the government/politics/democracy having their faith in the system erased. — ssu

Yes. I was using the notion of "Religion" loosely, to refer to the communal sense of us-versus-them, not to any particular god-model. For example, Hitler was not literally worshipped as a god, but he was exalted as "der Fuhrer", leader of the Aryan "Folk" (chosen people). In a similar manner, the dictator of North Korea is addressed, not as a functionary Prime Minister, but as "dear leader" or "father of the people", reflecting the pre-communism Emperor worship. :smile:

PS__This thread reminded me of another parallel between Political and Religious societies. Both require some means of maintaining loyalty to the sovereignty of the realm. In modern literate establishments, that central authority is typically a written Constitution or Bible. In a constitutional political system, Police are required to regulate ethical behavior. And a biblical social system must have priests to interpret the laws and to regulate moral behavior.

In both cases, a systemic bias toward either common Law or individual Freedom can affect the justice & fairness of the organization. Secret police and Inquisition courts are inherently inclined toward defense of the ruling regime. But "defunded police" and lax courts tend toward anarchy and system collapse. Hence, the ongoing struggle between too-much and not-enough integrity of the Body Politic. In over-simplified terms, we call it Conservative versus Liberal politics. :cool:

The theory that makes most sense to me - not my theory - is that in a many-party system, the least successful parties tend to evaporate, their voters migrating to one or more of the more successful parties. — tim wood

I'm currently reading a novel that describes British politics prior to WWII. And it illustrates the internal divisions of the Left wing --- between A> Traditional Middle-class Liberals, B> the lower-class Labour Party, and C> the upstart Communist Party. Their dithering & quibbling allowed the Conservative upper-class Royalist Party (Lords) to ignore ominous German & Russian aggression. Eventually, allowing Britain to be sucked into the hostilities after it was almost too late to stop the partitioning of Europe between Fascist & Communist governments. It took a holocaust, and near annihilation of Britain, for them to put aside their partisanship, and jump into the middle of the fray, in defense of Home & Hearth, both Hovel and Castle. :meh:

PS__The modest "virtue" of weak multi-party rule, compared with strong dictatorships, is that most official policies are watered-down from my-way-or-the-highway extremism to namby-pamby moderation. Thereby maintaining a dynamic state of peace & stability. But for those who feel their backs are against the wall, moderation is capitulation. Before the rise of Democracy there was only one party : one-man-rule. That kept things simple, but change (progress for some) could only be achieved by violent overthrow (win-lose), as in the Game of Thrones. The "successful party" was the one that could impose its will on the others (e.g. the one with the most dragons). The modern alternative is to allow all parties to win a little here & there. A win-win political strategy. :blush:

FWIW, Our two political parties are not simply polarized Black & White, or Red & Blue. This article illustrates that the "Great Divide" is much more complex. It seems that the actual problem is a shrinking moderate position, for finding common ground. I don't envy the politicians trying to pander to their constituency. :wink:

Beyond Red vs. Blue: The Political Typology
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/11/09/beyond-red-vs-blue-the-political-typology-2/?utm_source=pocket-newtab

Actually Aristotle explained the current scenario, and why the senate always seems to be close to 50:50.

To understand his explanation, imagine a government with five senators voting on a divisive issue, with a split 2:2:1. The single person has the most power by allying with one group or the other, but the lowest likelihood of winning another election after changing sides, because someone totally aligned with either one group or the other will get more popular votes. Hence it inevitably becomes a biparty system with a 3:2 split.

OIne would think increasing the senate size would stop this happening. But it doesn't. What happens is small groups accumulate and build up to the same result. For example, with 7 senators, one gets a split 2:2:3. the two groups of two can stop one person from the group of 3 controlling the swing vote by ganging together to make 4:3.

It transpires, emprically, Aristotle's observation holds true for at least a hundred. Somewhere between that and the size of the House in the USA it starts to break down, but I never saw a mathematical analysis of it. Chance for someone to make a fortune publishing it, as no one reads Aristotle any more. lol.

The winner takes all system is the fatal flaw of American democracy, we are observing it's resultant collapse in real time.

It creates the perverse outcome that ideologically allied parties are each other's GREATEST ENEMIES, simply because they will steal votes from each other. Which means the entrenched party will do everything it can to crush the upstart. While the voting public understand the risk of choosing the less powerful of the two ideologically aligned parties.

This inevitably leads to two entrenched and increasingly dysfunctional zombie parties. Because no matter how toxic and diseased they become, there is no redress, they cannot be killed.

Interestingly, the Trump era, culminating in Jan 6, gave the Democrats the perfect opportunity to destroy their nominal enemy once and for all. But they chose not to, and as a result they and America has a real monster on its hands. The decent of America into outright fascism is now very much on the table.

Yes, I think that analysis seems right, but it only applies in first part the post systems. In systems where small parties get to exercise power proportionally, then voting for them is not a waste, and meaningful coalitions can arise. No doubt that will have its problems but it's got to be better than the current shit show we have in the US and UK now. Not that I'm an expert on political science.

There are only two parties in American democracy for the simple reason that those who created it realized, much to our benefit, that given any issue, only two voices matter - those for and those against. — TheMadFool

:rofl:

A two-party system is Communism masquerading as Democracy or Democracy on the verge of Communism.

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another. — excerpt from President George Washington's Farewell Address (1796)

(Emphases are mine.)

https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=15&page=transcript