Re: A simple proposition to fix democracy in U.S.

> I am wondering if it can be tried in the USA or Canada. Would it be legal to
> offer people choice here?

The 2 party system in the United States is not a legal requirement.
Rather, it is the reality that has developed over a two-hundred year
process of political life.  No law prevents other parties from
organizing and nominating candidates.  Most often, you see it happen
effectively at the local level (city or county), or at the state
level.

The state of New York, for example is home to no less than 12
political parties:
     Democrat          Republican            Green
     Libertarian       Unified Independant   Conservative
     Independance      Liberal               Marijuana Reform
     Communist         Socialist             Working Families
Lets not even start talking about California! <grin>

Comparing Ireland's system of political parties to the United States
is difficult because of the vast population difference.  The
population of Ireland is about 5.5 million people.  The population of
the United States is about 285 million (about 52 times the size of
Ireland).  Even comparing New York State to Ireland is a bit of a
stretch, becuase New York State has a population of about 19 million
(even New York City has a larger population than Ireland, with about 8
million people). I think the population difference is important,
because the multiple party system you suggest may work better among
(relatively) smaller populations than for larger ones.

Still, allow me to describe the way in which "third parties" function
as a practical matter in our national political life, and the
significance they have.

Currently, there are five "major" third parties at the national level
in the US: Constitution, Green, Libertarian, Natural Law, and Reform. 
By "major" I mean that at least one of their candidates has received
more than 100,000 votes in an election in the last 20 years. Of these,
the Green and Reform parties have been the most significant in recent
years.  There are also at least 10 "minor" third parties.

In a country of 285 million people, third parties will naturally have
difficulty winning state-wide elections (ie for Governor, or for the
US Senate-- though Jesse Ventura won the Governorship of Minnesota as
the Reform Party candidate, and US Senator Jim Jefferts of Vermont is
an Independent).  Winning the Presidency, the only nation-wide
election, is virtually impossible.  The reason is simply that the
third parties tend to have only one (or a small handful) of issues
that they are interested in (cf. Marijuana Reform Party in New York
State <grin>). This means that they tend to appeal only to a small
percentage of voters.  Most Americans are unwilling to "throw away"
their vote (thereby giving up influence on a broad range of issues) in
order to vote for a guy they know won't be elected, even if he is
saying precisely what they think on one particular issue.

This does not mean, however, that third parties are without influence.
Traditionally, third parties at the national level will shape the
national political discourse and the agenda's of the two major
parties.  When a third party becomes "hot," gaining voters and
influence, one of the major parties tends to adopt their agenda and
rhetoric.  Third parties thus have the effect of pulling the major
parties back towards their respective political polls. While the
difference between political left and right in the US is not as wide
as it is in Europe, the minor parties prevent the two major parties
from becoming indistinguishable to the American voter.

Of course, the other effect of rising minor parties is precisely what
you described in the 1992 and 2000 Presidential elections.  Ross Perot
(Reform) "stole" enough votes from George H.W. Bush (Republican) to
hand the election to Bill Clinton (Democrat).  The result was a
clarion call to the Republican party to respect its conservative base
(esp. anti-tax positions).  That call was heeded (finally) in the 2000
election. Ralph Nader (Green) "stole" enough votes from Al Gore
(Democrat) to hand the 2000 election to George W. Bush (Republican) in
the 2000 election.  The Democrats have heeded the call of their base
to be more liberal.

To end the long discourse, a word about the difference between
primaries and general elections.  The American political system
requires "general" elections by law.  The standards for being placed
on the ballot are set by the respective states for offices in the
state and for national office (House, Senate, Presidency).  Anyone who
meets those requirements gets on the ballot. Usually this means
nomination by a political party (the test there is usually pretty
minor and easy to meet) OR a minor filing fee and signatures on a
petition (also usually minor and easy to meet).  For example, in the
recent race for California governor, all that was required was a
$3,000 entrance fee and 3,000 signatures... over 100 candidates made
it onto the ballot.  The sucess of the Reform and Green parties in the
last 15 years is due to the fact that they were able to pull together
enough money and organization to get their presidential candidate on
the ballot in most of the states... and still have the resources left
to actually campaign. (It takes a lot more work and funds to get on 50
ballots and campaign to 285 million people than it does to get on only
one ballot and campaign to 5.5 million, or even 19 million!)

Primaries are the elections that parties hold among party members to
nominate their candidate for those general elections.  Usually only
party members can vote in those elections (though strangely, this is
not always the case).  A candidate who fails to gain his or her
party's nomination can still run in the general election by filing the
petition and fee.  This usually does not happen, however, because it
would effectively kill that candidate's relationship with their own
party... making it difficult to win (lacking the party's help in
campaigning) and difficult to govern if elected.  Yet, it does happen.
 In the 1980 Presidential election, John Anderson ran for the
Republican nomination against Ronald Reagan.  Reagan won the
nomination, but Anderson decided to run as an Independant (no
political party) in the general election.  He lost, but did receive 6
million votes.

I hope that this gives you a better sense of how the American
political system works, and why it seems to me that a system of
political parties similar to that of Ireland is unlikely to function
at the national level in the United States.  In short, no law in the
United States (or in any of the States) limits the number of political
parties to the major two (Democrat and Republican).  Alternative
("third") parties are more likely to be able to elect candidates at
the state level, because at the national level they tend to be
absorbed by one of the major parties when they become "hot" (taking
votes away from that major party), or simply aren't able to muster the
support in terms of volunteers and funds to get on the ballot in
enough states to have a realistic chance of winning.  At the national
level, "third" parties function positively to pull the major parties
back to a more pure expression of their respective political
philosophies.

If you want to read more about current and historical "third" parties
in the United States, I suggest you check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States