Half a dozen would definitely be better than 2. It would result in more meaningful dialogue and more cooperation than a 2-party system does. If several parties must work together to pass legislation, they are forced to seek solutions together, and that encourages compromise and a mulitiplicity of viewpoints.

There's only one thing worse in a voting culture than a 2-party system, and that's a one-party system...as in the case of Communist Russia or China....or Nazi Germany. In other words, the more monolithic the party structure, the less democratic the process.

Yes, winner take all is a very bad system upon which to base a society (though not a wolfpack). A healthy society is built on compromise, not domination by the most powerful group over the rest.