I’m writing about the ways a multiparty system would work better than the two-party duopoly we’ve got in the US. I am looking for some game-theory expertise, and thought maybe someone here could point me in the right direction.
It seems to me that when you have multiple “players” (political parties) in, say, a congressional setting where collective decisions need to be made, there are stronger incentives towards setting rules that are fair. Whereas with only two “players”, there is more possibility of collusion between them to exclude certain kinds of maneuvers, etc., and/or there may be a cheapened version of fairness such as agreeing to take turns hijacking the system.
(This hijacking is also facilitated by the fact that with only two parties, one will have a majority unto itself in every legislative chamber. Whereas with more than two parties, not only would it be rarer for one party to have a majority on its own, but norms against hijacking would be strengthened, over time.)
So let’s call this the “more players, more fairness” hypothesis. I’m looking for a theoretical proof.
Anyone know of something like that?