Is that first paragraph something enforced in law? Seems reasonable to have to cut your own funding you carry through legislation.
Discussion
Nope, it's tradition - which the current coalition didn't follow (e.g. the anti-immigration party is in charge is dismantling the asylum system, and predictably doesn't get anything done).
Yikes. Traditions are fragile.
Many religious folks would disagree with that claim.
They would be right but I see political partyism as a new form of religion. It's preying on our monkey brain's desire to have a tribe and for that tribe to win.
It's all so tiresome.
The heavily polarized two party system in the US indeed has unhealthy tribalism. But it hasn't always been that way historically and it's not the case for all countries with a two party system (which itself is a result of first-past-the-post voting systems).
Multi-party systems have less of this problem. Perhaps because the need to make different coalitions each election, which means it's a bad idea try and obliterate the other side.
No politician party can ever fully represent your views. Having more choice helps, but when parties get too small you run into other problems (e.g. too much self promotion grand standing, not enough time to read a law before passing it).
Modern technology might be able to find a better coordination mechanism that political parties. Though I used to be more optimistic about that.
Approval voting makes the most sense to me. Less polarized outcomes…in this voting method, you vote for as many candidates as you would approve for the job. Disapproval expressed by not voting.
It would look something like: I really like RFK, but since he won’t win, I’ll vote for Trump and RFK to signal my disapproval of remaining candidates.