<p>I think there will be usually be a prime number of stable parties. I’m not sure why. (Experiment-based conjecture)
Also, I don’t think social conservatism is going to survive much longer in its present form. The paradigm might shift to genetics and neurology (I already obsess about cardiac tissue, metabolic rates, autistic spectrum and schizoid conditions - so it might just be me), with perhaps technology as an intermediate state.
If socialconservativeevangelicism survives much longer, there most definitely will be civil war, uprising, suppression or massacre as collateral for attempted revolution. Most likely the conservatives are either going to enslave the world or find their prejudices targetted by the law, as social conservatism instigates conflict with everything else (I’m not guessing that soc-con won’t survive - just that it will either adapt or spill blood).</p>
<p>On the other hand, govt minimalism is currently an idea that stands a chance of working under the right conditions. In absolute form it might be escapism but if people vote on the specifics I see what you’re talking about. In a few decades we might perhaps see an experiment to that effect; more importantly right now we have many different ideas with different levels of “government conservatism” like Federalism, State-based gov, Village council funded by state etc.</p>
<p>So while I have only mentioned two things, I agree with you quite a bit regarding densely heterogeneous politics. It is welcomed, but then will the parties, as they are, allow this to happen? If we open the door to personal opinion deciding one’s politics as opposed to party, we must acknowledge that some politicians don’t yearn for any particular tradition. Communities might not always embrace the epiphanies that change the politician.
To explain what I mean, I give an example with a hypothetical politician, “me.”
My priority is complex, but it has something to do with the veneration of industry and the abolition of hate. At first, I might run on a Dem ticket. Without the Dem party, I’m going to consider the most efficient way to execute - I honestly would not mind publicising my plan on paper. If that means minimizing taxes (which I do not always think is good) then that would work for the situation. Then next idea is that one in office must act as an instrument of others, but one is free to propose new ideas to get the goals done. How do you convince people to become your base? Do you take the path your community wants always? If you make novel decisions, then is anyone of political repute going to endorse them?</p>
<p>So yes, I can nearly fathom the shifting of boundaries. However, I still think that while there might not exactly always be a two-party system, it has stood the test of time by each party talking mainly about the points of the day, and they retain a leash on their constituent politicians for the love of the base.</p>
<p>The new ideas spring up at the grass roots level, and get swamped when they grow old into their parties. Loyalty is the problem to me.</p>