As it is, all significant offices are elected by having a list of candidates on the ballot, you vote for one, and the one with the most votes wins.* A candidate doesn't need a majority (i.e. more than half) to get elected, just a plurality (i.e. more than anyone else).

*(The electoral college in presidential elections is technically an exception. But it only makes a difference when candidates are basically tied.)

Nor is it at all proportional: in a hypothetical scenario where 20% of the voters vote Theocrat, 35% vote Plutocrat, and 45% vote Democrat, the candidates elected from that district are Theocrats 0%, Plutocrats 0%, and Democrats 100%. Of course, the voters know this in advance. So do the candidates. And the organizers, and the donors. So we don't have separate Theocratic and Plutocratic parties: they would lose every time. Likewise we don't have separate parties championing the causes of organized labor and LGBT equality.

If we changed the system, so that 35% of the votes would get you about 35% of the seats in the House instead of a big fat zero, we would have those separate parties. I think that would be a good thing, because there are more than two sides to every interesting issue.

When I mentioned 3 party, I was referring to Repulican, Democrat, + 1 "AE".

There are lots of ways of having multi-party systems. Parliamentary systems, where you form a government by assembling a majority coalition in the parliament, tend to be multi-party. My favorite idea for a multi-party system is to simply eliminate geographical districts and let people choose which House seat to vote for. Any party that can organize a decent registration drive, sufficient to get about 1% of the population to choose a particular seat as their supporters, could get a House seat from California. In other states the threshold would be higher, but nationally there would be a bunch of parties.

To get a three-party system, you could put two offices on the same ballot. Each person gets to vote for one candidate, and the top two vote-getters are elected. You could institutionalize the role of opposition leader, and elect him or her on the same ballot with the president. Legislators could be elected two to a district, on one ballot.

I favor a one/two/many party system. "Two" comes from the status quo, and "many" from a proportional scheme. For the "one" component, there's a chamber that acts as a sort of permanent constitutional convention and you need a slight supermajority to get elected as a full member. Members would be elected nation-wide. Only one party at a time can aspire to such supermajority status. Usually this role would be vacant: the standing convention would mostly have limited members, who can only introduce bills, vote either way in committee, and vote no (or abstain) on final passage.

Interestingly enough, I just posted a column on the third-party theme. Go back to the main page here, and it should be visible now.

-CW

Do you think a 3 party system would be more healthy for Americans?

Welcome to the site. See comment [4] above, for info on posting comments.

You raise a good point about Gingrich, but I think if Paul dropped out it wouldn't matter much, because I think most of his voters would then just stay home on primary day.

Gingrich's last hope is MS and AL next Tuesday. I've heard rumors that if he doesn't win at least one of them, he'll likely drop out. But then I take such rumors with a grain of salt, because the real question is whether his Las Vegas Sugar Daddy will keep funding his hopeless campaign or not.

It sure would clear the field for a Romney/Santorum race, though. But you are most likely right about the establishment of the party being pretty OK with the three-way race, and the split vote right now.

-CW

First off, welcome to the site. Your first comment was held for moderation, but from now on you'll be able to post comments instantly -- as long as you don't post multiple links within a single comment (which is automatically held for moderation to cut down on comment spam).

Now, as to your questions:

1. I think the GOP establishment is not unlike the GOP voters -- they're behind Romney, but reluctantly.

2. Depends what you mean by inappropriate. They'll certainly throw their weight around, as they already did when it looked like Newt had a chance.

3. Nope. Do tell!

4. Anything is possible. What I'm going to be watching closely is how the Americans Elect thing plays out. Will there be a third name on the ballot with enough heft to affect the GOP/Dem race? Could be, could be... but a lot's going to depend on who they pick.

Looking past this election, it is possible that a third party rises, but if it truly was a viable major party then (historically, at least), it would be followed by the death of one of the other parties (likely the GOP, in this scenario) -- and then we'd be back to a two-party system, with one change in party name.

-CW

ANY political "establishment" is radical...

Any attempt to exclusively attribute this to only one Party simply proves it...

Michale.....

The Republican establishment is radical.