No it's this idea that "teh eble 2 prty systm" is the problem when in reality the problem is that everyone involved in your system is a friend handicapped
the reason why winner-take-all elections tend toward a two-party system is because a two-party system is just the optimal state for simply getting people into office under this electoral system. because there's no reward until you get the most votes, naturally the best shot at representation is to have as few divisions in the electorate as possible, that way opposing parties have to get more votes to beat each other. there's no stupidity here--you literally have the best chance at representation when you settle for someone who's close enough to you, but more likely to actually win. strategic voting becomes a necessity in these systems because having more parties is objectively bad for everyone, it means that if you have sixteen parties, with full voter participation, someone could win with only 6.25% of the vote plus one. that is horrendously unrepresentative; 93.75% of the electorate wanted someone else.
if minor parties got any reward for the votes they did get, this problem would not exist.
Poll