As . write this, British elector are going to the polls in what has been billed as one of the most exciting Great U.K. elections of the post-war period gouge Clegg, member of the third party liberalist Democrats, could overtake his mainstream competition Gordon Brown and David Cameron . Regardless of the outcome, this is the kind of run that inevitably brand you think hard about first-past-the-post systems.

Britain, like the United States, chosen the members of its legislature through the infamous system in which whoever get the most votes, wins. This has begun to look anachronistic in face of today’s global preponderance of scheme of proportional representation, in which smaller political party have more than a scrap chance at law-makers seats While American may look at the engagement over forming a alinement in place like Yisrael or Al-Iraq and think the stableness and governability of our system eclipse its disadvantages, it is hard to deny that having only two dominant political party bound voters’ internal mental representation and government accountability.

Katrina vanden Heuvel wrote an interesting op-ed in the Washington Post last week, saying that Clegg’s rise in Britain should make us think on this side of the pond as well clegg has proposed far-reaching reform to the electoral system that could seriously disrupt the electric current party system there.

The liberalist Democrat have in fact had more representation than third political party in the United States, which have not gained any noticeable adhesive friction in the modern United States Congress The fact that running as an fencesitter is preferable to joining a third party certainly distinguishes our two legislatures. Another major difference is that third party clegg could be head of government, a effort basically unimaginable in today’s United States government politics. In the absence of major convulsion that disrupts our entire political system, the United States is unlikely to see an American clegg in the presidential race any time soon. Sir John Ross Perot and Ralph Nader served the purpose of stirring up the debate more than presenting a viable choice for the presidency.

This substance because we all know how stagnant the political debate can become when there are only two voices. If the entire political spectrum is divided into just two parts, political party rarely have to challenge established norms. This foliage them less accountable to the elector that put them in office, and instead free to select just a couple of briny issue to fight for while going the rest unchanged. That benefit no one but the people in power

And so, in the next election, when some third party campaigner is feeding into your majority-party’s share of the votes, endeavour reveling in your opportunity for choice rather than bemoaning the spoiler.