Advantages[edit]

Some historians have suggested that two-party systems promote centrism and encourage political
parties to find common positions which appeal to wide swaths of the electorate. It can lead to
political stability[4][not in citation given] which leads, in turn, to economic growth. Historian Patrick Allitt of
the Teaching Company suggested that it is difficult to overestimate the long term economic benefits
of political stability. Sometimes two-party systems have been seen as preferable to multi-party
systems because they are simpler to govern, with less fractiousness and greater harmony, since it
discourages radical minor parties,[4] while multi-party systems can sometimes lead to hung
parliaments.[41] Italy, with a multi-party system, has had years of divisive politics since 2000, although
analyst Silvia Aloisi suggested in 2008 that the nation may be moving closer to a two-party
arrangement.[42] The two-party has been identified as simpler since there are fewer voting
choices.[4] One analyst suggested the two-party system, in contrast with proportional representation,
prevented excessive government interference with economic policy.[8]

Disadvantages
Two-party systems have been criticized for downplaying alternative views,[4][5] being less
competitive,[8] encouraging voter apathy since there is a perception of fewer choices,[4] and putting a
damper on debate[5] within a nation. In a proportional representation system, lesser parties can
moderate policy since they are not usually eliminated from government.[4]One analyst suggested the
two-party approach may not promote inter-party compromise but may encourage
partisanship.[5] In The Tyranny of the Two-party system, Lisa Jane Disch criticizes two-party systems
for failing to provide enough options since only two choices are permitted on the ballot. She wrote:
Herein lies the central tension of the two–party doctrine. It identifies popular sovereignty with choice,
and then limits choice to one party or the other. If there is any truth to Schattschneider's analogy
between elections and markets, America's faith in the two–party system begs the following question:
Why do voters accept as the ultimate in political freedom a binary option they would surely protest as
consumers? ... This is the tyranny of the two–party system, the construct that persuades United
Statescitizens to accept two–party contests as a condition of electoral democracy.

— Lisa Jane Disch, 2002[43]

There have been arguments that the winner-take-all mechanism discourages independent or third-
party candidates from running for office or promulgating their views.[8][44] Ross Perot's former
campaign manager wrote that the problem with having only two parties is that the nation loses "the
ability for things to bubble up from the body politic and give voice to things that aren't being voiced
by the major parties."[35] One analyst suggested that parliamentary systems, which typically are multi-
party in nature, lead to a better "centralization of policy expertise" in government.[45] Multi-party
governments permit wider and more diverse viewpoints in government, and encourage dominant
parties to make deals with weaker parties to form winning coalitions.[46] Analyst Chris Weigant of the
Huffington Post wrote that "the parliamentary system is inherently much more open to minority
parties getting much better representation than third parties do in the American system".[46] After an
election in which the party changes, there can be a "polar shift in policy-making" when voters react to
changes.[4]
Political analyst A. G. Roderick, writing in his book Two Tyrants, argued that the two American
parties, the Republicans and Democrats, are highly unpopular in 2015, and are not part of the
political framework of state governments, and do not represent 47% of the electorate who identify
themselves as "independents".[47] He makes a case that the American president should be elected on
a non-partisan basis,[48][47][49] and asserts that both political parties are "cut from the same cloth of
corruption and corporate influence."[50]
A multi party system as the name suggests is a system that has more than 2 equally
popular political parties in the struggle for power. This is evident both at the State and
national level. Even countries like India are at the end of the day ruled by either of the
two major political alliances- UPA or NDA.

Well, there are certain advantages to having a multi party system especially in pluralistic
and diverse countries.

1. Addresses local needs

2. Calls for more political participation of people
3. More political education
4. Represents diverse opinions from all sections of society.
However all systems are plagued with flaws as is this one. A multi party system leads to
division of votes with sometimes no party getting a clear mandate in its favour. It's the
coalition governments which are extremely weak and have weak policies. Therefore
some problems can be summed up as follows.

1. Confuses public opinion

2. Division of votes
3. Hung Legislatures
4. Weak coalition governments
5. Weak policies
Thus this was a simple evaluation of the pros and cons of having a multi party system. In
a diverse country multi party system evolves naturally, but what is also needed is a
strong centre.

Multy-party Good

There’s two ways you can look at it, our two party system is actually a good example.

When you pass a bill in Congress, you need a majority to support it, or 51–49 in favor.
Now let’s say that we were to raise the requirement to 60–40.

At first it might seem like a small difference but overall it makes a HUGE difference. I’m
sure you’ve heard the old joke, “What’s the opposite of Progress?” To which the
punchline is “Congress”. In a nutshell, Congress never gets anything done even with this
minimal requirement of majority support.

The more people that are required to support a bill, the less that things get done. But at
the same time, when you need more support, you get more pushes for a bi-partisan
peice of legislation.

Now let’s say we had a one party system. Since there’s no opposing viewpoints,
legislation gets passed all the time with minimal effort even if it doesn’t accurately
represent the ideas of the public. Quite contrasting it in a multiparty system, you end up
having more views that you can identify with rather then getting clumped under a big
tent party. Additionally, it adds for more moderate views rather than a sharp divide
between left and right.

A system that functions with multiple political parties is less prone to corruption. It is
more prone to transparency and accountability. All desirable features that enhance the
quality of democracy. Multiple political parties reduce the political frustrations of the
citizens. Everyone is a little happier with election and voting results and have a little
more faith in their government. However, the old establishment is very sour and will
continue their complaints the rest of their lives.