This post is a response to a question posed in its complete format: “Which type of party system is best for a country, one party system, two party system or multiple party system?”

The more parties, the more broad the representation of the people.

The more parties, the less polarized the people are by ideology.

The more parties, the less gridlock on issues preventing progress on their resolution.

The more parties, the less able the plutocrats are to manipulate groups of public representatives to corrupt the entire system.

The fewer the parties, the more prone a system becomes to internal conflicts and widespread instability.

The fewer the parties, the more prone a system is to authoritarian control of the people.

The fewer the parties, the more prone the system is to civil unrest and the factors leading to a systemic collapse.

The fewer the parties, the more prone the entire system becomes to corruption at all levels, from the leadership down to the core units of society.

The fewer the parties, the more prone the people become to developing a sociopathic fragility and a callous disregard for the social contract.

The more parties, the more prone people are to cooperative negotiations in a culture of mutual respect for the social contract.

The more parties, the more democratic the system and the more egalitarian the people become.

The fewer the parties, the more prone the system becomes to toxic competitiveness that corrodes the natural goodwill of the people toward each other.