Trump has no positives but what a lot of people see in him is the old way of the cold hard truth and they may be seeing something that is not really there. We are at a period in time where issues are more divided. You have people claiming equality for men and women in the workplace yet you have the liberal side trying "affirmative action" which from my point of view nothing about that is equality. So when you have Trump say some totally out there about men/women in the workforce you might not agree with what he says but its more on the side of your view then Hilary. Same can be said about immigration. I am not against immigration I am against illegal immigration and being I live in California next to a few safe harbor cities I can see what we have in place now first hand and agree it does not work. So while I dont agree with his all Mexicans are criminals his plan has more merit with my view the Clinton's let open the boarders more policies. Both the Candidates are to the extreme on there policies that people that sit middle ground are stuck picking a side and get lumped into the bad or the good. I have stood by I am more conservative then I am liberal but if you show me how a policy can be done with a positive fiscal impact I can get behind it.
Extreme example say someone said we should give every homeless guy $10000.00 to help them get there life on track I would fight it every step of the way as I see no way that would work financially in the long run. Now maybe if you said we spend $2 million and build 2 factories that only homeless people can work out for a wage and a bed I could see the finical gain in that plan and go with it.
This is why I've come to realize that the 2 party system isn't all that it's cracked up to be. AceHigh is one of the guys that got me thinking about it. With the 2 party system, we gain stability and candidates who must strategically appeal to the largest portions of the voting base. But I think what we end up with is another form of tyranny of the majority instead. With candidates trying to appeal to everybody, we end up with candidates who appeal to nobody. The system forces all of us to compromise our beliefs and to try to align with whoever's closest. This is fine if your beliefs are mainstream or fit in with the segments that the politicians are reaching out to. But for the rest of us, we have to deal with nearly always being unsatisfied about our choices, which in turn leads to feelings of disenfranchisement. It's no wonder that nobody likes to vote -- the system itself inadvertently discourages it! And when voters feel like their choices are limited, it turns into this horrible "us versus them" mentality which is what we've seen run rampant these last few decades. You HAVE to vote for your guy even if you don't like him, because the OTHER guy is so much worse or too different. What a bunch of crap!
At least if we had a multi-party system, it would be easier for voters to find someone they liked, which hopefully in turn would increase voter engagement and voter turnout. The politicians would still have to find common ground once they got into office in order to get anything done, but, fuck it, that's the nature of the job. Let them fight out, and let the rest of us relax a bit, knowing that the Trumpsters and the Clinton fanboys aren't going to wreck the world because there's a dozen other parties sharing power.
And whether a 2 party system or a multi-party system is more vulnerable to influence by special interests, I can't say for sure. But I'd wager that the damage done is less in a multi-party system because there are more parties and it certainly would be easier for a new party opposing a special interest to gain a foothold.
Europe is full of multi-party systems, my own country has one as well. Our elections to the parliament were in fact two weeks ago. Given what I've seen before hand and what I'm seeing now. You aren't correct in either of your points.
You still have the basic blocks. The dems and the conservatives, and everyone else is either a major point party(piracy, immigration, the greens... etc) or something that's basically the dems or conservatives just with a slight difference(liberals vs conservatives).
You still have to choose the least worst candidates. The voter turnout rate is generally the same.
There's fewer things known because to form a majority you still have to form a coalition, which in turn requires compromises on their ideals and beliefs. This in general leads to "even less shit getting done", because no one really calls the shots. In fact, our elections were two weeks ago, we still have no fucking clue who the opposition is and who the leading parties are and they don't either. Because they can't decide on a coalition.
While you don't get people as polarising as Clinton and Trump for president, because in a multi party system that'd be suicide, what you do get is a lot of people who are straight in the center and you literally have to look at each one of them for a few hours to figure out what's what Because the difference is literally only in the details. This requires are significantly higher interest in politics than actually exists in the population.
A multi party system also exists as outlets for fringe politics they are dangerous elements that CAN grow into something massive. And in fact have done so. The problem with them is the same as is the problem with other "single point parties" it is that they have to do shit beyond that one point and experience tells us that they have no fucking clue how to do that. So populism is a REAL problem in the multiparty system.
In general, yes, multi party systems are better at representing people. However, they require far more voter involvement than a two party system does, and don't take this as an insult. But America has already proven to us, that with only two parties around, you have difficulties presenting a message across. Hell, Trump is a prime example here, the only reason he's standing on the podium is because he's a show man and he's created an image that's easy to distinguish.