BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD

(now you know how I voted )

Definity bad. Most Americans are more mainstream than extreme liberal or conservative, and the two party system makes it very difficult to find a candidate like that, and severely limits the number of people that can run for each office- third party candidates rarely ever win, and there are often multiple democrats or multiple republicans that would be good for a job, yet only one is given the opportunity to run.

Do you think having more than two major candidates would make the process confusing to the extent that fewer people would bother (A) keeping up with the issues and (B) voting?

More people would both vote and keep up with the issues because:

Voting - it is easier to find a candidate that is more like you. If there are more candidates, the public will find the candidate that is most like them and vote for him/her, because they feel more passionate about that candidate. I think it would actually lead to a rise in voting, especially because so many people disagree with most of what the candidates say and don't vote 3rd Party, or don't vote at all because "my vote doesn't matter". This leads to...

Issues - if candidates are not tied to a dominant party's platform, they will be more willing and able to express their exact opinions. Furthermore, they will not be required to be staunchly liberal or conservative in order to be chosen for their party's nomination. This will lead to an increase in moderate candidates, whose ideas will be more compatible with those of the average voter. I think issues will be evenly projected because of funding and lack of name recognition as far as parties are concerned - the media will report more candidates and people will be overall more interested in the electoral process.

This will obviously take time, but I think it is conceiveable that, without political parties, the US could see 80%-90% of citizens cast ballots in a field of five or more viable candidates.

I think that it would be more confusing, but that isn't neccessarily bad. A lot of people just see republican or democrat by someone's name and vote for them without even thinking about it. The dissolution of two-party politics would cause those people to think about who they want to vote for.

On the other hand...

The average American doesn't know where the candidates stand on a lot of issues.  More candidates would just further confuse the populace.  I think this sort of happens in the primaries; only enthusiastic voters really research all the candidates for the nomination. The theory behind the two party system is that neither party will be able to win with just its extremists so in order to win elections (the party's function) they will have to cater to the more moderate, larger percent of the population.

I'm with Sunshine.  Of course, the answer is education; but when it comes to voting, the education you get is from the candidates themselves, and that education requires funding, and that funding requires a significant following, and that following requires a party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-partisan_democracy#Governments

Pros and cons

[edit] Advantages

• Citizens can not engage in ticket splitting, vote pairing, straight-ticket voting, or other tactical voting methods so the election outcome will more likely reflect the intent of the citizens.
• Elected officials are not beholden to a party apparatus that got them elected, and are not subjected to party restrictions on how they may vote. Non-partisan officials can therefore more readily represent the actual needs of their constituents.
• All in the community (or at least perhaps those of a certain age, without a criminal record, etc.) are made eligible to vote and can be voted for. Thus, it is believed that a non-partisan system also expands choice in elections beyond the limited range of choices as are otherwise presented to the public, who will at best have a limited role in partisan systems.
• It is argued that the simple opportunity of being enabled to privately witness and assess the character and initiative of individuals within one's own community (especially where regular town meetings occur at the local level or, in indirect election systems, where non-partisan delegates meet at a national level) provides a better picture of how capable a given individual is of providing future leadership and service.
• Advocates argue that self-aggrandizement and promise-making inherent within partisan democracies would be minimized in such non-partisan systems (and possibly eliminated entirely in at least the public level for non-electioneering systems).
• Appeals to limited loyalties and divisiveness surrounding partisan elections (and their social consequences beyond the elections) may be averted, especially in no-electioneering systems. This was one of the rationales advanced in favor of Uganda's previous no-party system.
• In nonpartisan systems without electioneering, financial dependence on third parties may be averted by those elected, who are unencumbered with such alliances and can make decisions according to their own conscience rather than the party or lobbies that supported them.
• Such a system is considered by some to be also compatible with technocracy, whereby the solemn atmosphere may tend to elect candidates who may have great abilities and knowledge yet would not otherwise be inclined to participate in a media frenzy or take part in behind-the-scenes power-grabs.
• Such systems are seen to invite a greater possibility of selection of traditionally-overlooked candidates from less self-promotional or less confrontation-accustomed populations, such as women or certain ethnic minorities.

[edit] Disadvantages

• Political parties can provide poorer candidates greater resources and financing to compete against wealthier candidates. Standardized party rules may thus help equalize the campaigning field, insuring all candidates conform to certain standards.
• Voters may find voting on a party basis more convenient than learning the platforms of innumerable candidates. It may be easier for voters to simply learn a broad, philosophical agenda (ie: a party platform) towards governance / politics and support candidates who share it. Time and effort may be wasted trying to learn the individual opinions of each separate candidate for each separate office when it would be simpler for them to just identify on a common platform. Critics will argue that during contentious elections parties will de facto emerge on this basis anyway. For example, if a community's most pressing public debate was over whether or not to build a new library, it would be expected that some candidates would support the idea, and others not. Voters may thus make their decisions bases solely on who is willing to identify as being on "their side" of the issue, even for officials whose office is not directly related to the decision, solely on the basis that "they think like me."
• Many candidates may endorse the same or near identical policies so competing against each other wastes resources or splits the vote among them, thus allowing a more unpopular candidate with an unpopular agenda win on plurality. Supporters of parties argue it is more sensible for a group of like-minded individuals to work together in favor of a commonly endorsed compromise candidate, rather than each person trying to get elected on their own. This is a problem for only certain types of election systems such as plurality voting system, but is not a problem for election systems that do not require people to split their vote, such as approval voting, Borda Count, or range voting.
• In past non-partisan systems, such as British Columbia prior to 1903, there was a certain level of regionalism and so-called pork barreling, where members would support a bill only if it somehow benefited their own local region.

To disadvantages, I would add that there could be innumerable candidates.  For example, what would happen if the governor of each state ran for president?

Yeah I agree, there needs to be a limit which I think the primaries serve nicely to do. It is not ideal but no government is.

The most visible, experienced candidate with the largest number of constituents would come out on top. For example, the governor of California would be a much more viable candidate than the governor of Kentucky. The governor of Texas would be more viable than the governor of Maine.

Your disadvantage regarding number of candidates is false. In a true democracy, every citizen can campaign for political office. Take, for example, Geneva, the truest democracy in recent history.

A larger number of candidates allows for the majority to have a better voice in government, while still allowing the minority to campaign. It also allows for a faster shift from minority status to majority status.

Education on political issues is important, but the drawbacks are not directly related to number of candidates - in a two party system there are still large numbers of uneducated voters. I think voters would make a better effort to become educated if they knew it was more important, which would be the case in a multi-party, or non-partisan system.

Basically it comes down to faith in the voting public, which I have, and which I think would be strengthened instead of weakened by a multi-/non-partisian, given time for the public to adjust.

In a perfect world...

It should be pointed out that the vast majority of legislation passes by an overwhelming majority (among representatives who vote).  It's only critical issues that actually end up drawing strict party lines, and it tends to be views on those issues that are the reason for aligning with a party to start with.  So even if there weren't parties, those same alignments would occur.

To Greenhat, I agree that a direct democracy is ideal but like most ideals it is also highly impractical/ impossible.  A direct democracy moves much slower than does a representative.  Government effiencency is everything. One of the things that limited the Roman Republic was its short term length for its consuls (one year) Heck, (happy big bro?) the candidates compaigned for almost two years this election.