Originally Posted by Numinous
Too bad parties thrived on the fragmentation rather than the attempt of cohesion.
Well, both are somewhat correct. I'd say 80% of people are centrists or moderates, which leaves room for extremists to vote on a middle-of-the-road party and ensure seats for them, but the thing is I think the true crazies make up for 1% in a given extremity of the wings, so, if they voted on a party that truly expressed their convictions, they'd get at tops 1 seat on the government in some lousy department no one gives a shit about because the other parties wouldn't let that seat be of any relevancy.
I'm also trying to take into account those that might vote for a representative due to misinformation. While voting for a party happens a lot now because it's the "lesser evil," it's still a problem that people vote for one because "Well, they agree with me on a few points, so that makes them good, right?" This might happen while either completely ignoring, or just not being fully informed of the full scope of a representatives stance. This happens frequently because people aren't encouraged to fully inform themselves. This isn't always the case, but for one reason or another, while the ability to vote for another might be an option [that would properly represent them], they may not know that. Naw'meen? It might not be enough to have a massive seat [like 25%], but it's still enough