I disagree with the argument against a multi-party system being predicated on the 'toning down' of alternate party choices. While you are no doubt correct that some of the nuttier platform statements of *any* party dissuade people from wanting that party to have enough power to dismantle our government structure and rebuild it in their own image: I would counter by saying that the *more* parties you have, the *less* likely it is that any one can gain a majority, thereby gaining the power to make those sort of radical changes possible.

By having - lets say - five parties, each with it’s own strong base and support system, you would manage to get more than two sides on any given debate. Compromises would be more than just ‘he said, she said’ affairs with only two (supposedly) polar opposite viewpoints to choose from.

Furthermore, I think multiparty systems would be much harder for lobbyists (those bastards) to operate in. If you have only two sides to bribe, I mean, “contribute to” then you have a much cheaper (relatively) lobby cost.

And yes, I fucking hate lobbyists: Fuck you assholes for buying off this countries political process. And fuck career politicians for taking the checks all the way to the bank. In the Bahamas of course….