In the past few years I’ve heard a lot from lefties disappointed with Obama. In the past few months I’ve heard a lot from Tea Partiers and libertarians frustrated with the GOP.
But, what else ya gonna do? Throw your vote away on a third party?
The problem is that America’s single-member-district winner-take-all plurality system for electing legislatures marginalizes third parties, just by mechanical operation. See Duverger’s Law. Or, as that respected polysci publication TVTropes puts it:
Or put another way: Suppose, in your state’s next legislative election, 20% of the voters decide to vote Green (or substitute your fave) this year. How many Greens get into the state legislature? Almost certainly none – because there are not enough Green voters in any one district to form a majority or plurality there.
And that’s why, no matter who you are or what your politics, you will find yourself making such strange and unpleasant bedfellows, if you are active in either major party. It has to be a “big tent” to win.
The same mechanics don’t apply in race where there is only one office to be won, like the presidency or a governorship or mayorship.* But the parties created for legislative races are the real ones, a necessary foundation for anything else. Ross Perot tried creating a third party for presidential elections only – when’s the last you heard of it?
If you’re frustrated with all that, change the rules of the game! Start (or join) a movement to change to proportional representation! Let all the various discontented non-dominant political factions who can’t stand each other agree to work side by side on just this one cause. Then, once we have PR, you can participate in a smaller, more ideologically homogeneous party, which will actually get representation in your state legislature and Congress, and then the indispensable compromes of policy-making can be made in Congress, where everyone can (better) watch, instead of being made within major-party caucuses. Better.
How’s that supposed to work in the Senate? Without changing the Senate, you change nothing.
And the TPers got a whole bunch of Congresscritters elected last time. How would that be different had we had proportional representation? It’s the real fringe folks who benefit, somewhat, from PR, and they’re too small in number to matter. Especially with the Senate standing in their way.
It would also help the problem of extreme localization of current house candidates. The whole system of “my duty isn’t to the country as a whole, it’s to try to screw the rest of the country as much as possible to the benefit of my district” - for example using your power to keep an expensive but useless military project going because a company in your district won a contract for it.
I’d go ahead and abolish the senate along with such a change, perhaps inventing some other sort of legislative unit if you feel that bicameral legislature is necesary.
It’d be an improvement, but it’s also one of those things that would never happen - politicians would have to vote against the status quo, which is generally in their own best interest - so the people who’d have to agree to it would have to be acting for the benefit of the country to their own personal detriment, which never happens.
I beg your pardon, a Senate-as-it-is-now plus a House elected by PR would be a big change. And PR reform could also, and more importantly, be done at the state level, where nothing analogous to the Senate exists, a state senate is just a state house with fewer districts, elected in exactly the same way otherwise. Of course, a compromise is conceivable where one house of the state legislature is elected by PR while the other is elected by single-member districts, thus preserving the element of geographic representation; but that would still be much more favorable to third parties. And, eventually, to the emergence of a multiparty system where there are no “third parties,” just parties.
The difference is that it wouldn’t be a fluke.
Not in civic terms, they’re not. They’re citizens, they have as much right or claim as more mainstream-numerous factions have to have their POV at least heard on the floor of Congress.
Not an insurmountable obstacle, some countries have changed from single-member-district to PR systems, notably New Zealand (1993). And the UK, which invented and still uses the single-member-district system, turned to PR when it created new assemblies for Scotland and Wales. And several Canadian provinces are considering changing over.
I am not aware of any Canadian province which is considering a change. B.C. did an extensive review of the options, but the proposal to go to the single tranferrable ballot was rejected in a referendum. I’m not aware of any other serious proposal for change.
You can’t have PR in the Senate elections, since there is only one position per election, but you could bring in run-off elections: if no candidate takes 50% +1 of the vote, there’s a run-off election between the top two candidates.
That wouldn’t make much difference in the current climate, but if PR were introduced in the House elections, over time you might see the development of viable third and fourth parties. That in turn could lead to 3 or 4 candidates running in the Senate elections as well, making run-offs more common.
Or, better (and cheaper), what amounts to a runoff within the first round itself. (I.e., a system where instead of voting for just one candidate you rank-order them by preference; then, if your first choice does not get a majority of first-preference votes, your vote still counts to help elect your second choice, and so on. Then third-party candidate A is never a “spoiler,” taking votes away from the ideologically-nearer mainstream candidate B and strengthening mainstreamer C whom both A and B (and their supporters) completely hate. Think how the 2000 election might have gone if we had had instant-runoff voting then – many (not all) Nader votes would have counted for Gore, many Buchanan votes would have counted for W. I expect Gore would have won.
Single member districts w/FPTP tends towards less parties (typically two absent other factors), but it also leads to greater independence of individual politicians. While it may seem like a Republican or a Democrat Senator or congressman is a tool of the mighty two-party system, in fact in our system individual politicians have a greater degree of freedom on individual votes and positions, that’s the nature of the big tent parties.
In any major proportional representation country I’m aware of, you have coalition governments in which the representatives are extremely loyal to their party. The voters also come to vote along party lines and not along candidate lines, I dislike that. I think voters should vote for candidates and candidates once elected should have some leeway to vote with the other side on certain issues as they come up. All evidence I’ve seen suggests, because of the fact PR forces coalition governments and thus means each individual party needs very disciplined members so the party has a better chance of forming coalition governments. It creates a society in which your political affiliation is primarily party-based and not candidate-based.
I think in America the only people who really like such a system are socialist/Communists (whose political ideology has always tended towards almost slavish party loyalty), and leftists in general–who detest individualism and care more about group power in the legislature and not individual power. Finally, I think it actually causes less compromise. In a PR system the parties that form a coalition government essentially rule with an iron fist, their compromise was made in forming the government itself, and once that happens they have no incentive to ever compromise with the other parties out of power. In the American system since neither the Republicans or the Democrats can be 100% certain of getting 100% party support on any specific piece of legislation, it means even when one of them holds a majority in either house they have to come together to get things done. The two party system not only forces compromises within the big tent parties (akin to compromise to form a coalition in PR systems), but it also forces compromise between both parties themselves, which essentially encompasses the entirety of the legislature.
We all know of the grid lock of recent years, but the truth is for probably 185 of the 220 years of American history we’ve had two parties that have had to work together and compromise both within their party and with each other to get things done, and obviously things got done since we’ve passed some legislation in that time.
Finally, one of the hallmarks of a PR system is if you have no majority party and no means of forming a coalition government you can always hold new elections. We don’t have any means of holding new elections, so in theory if you changed the House to PR and no coalition could form (and thus no Speaker of the House or House officers, leaving the House unable to conduct business), you’d have an “interregnum” of two years in which we had no functioning House of Representatives.
You shouldn’t. Party-line voting is better. A candidate’s politics are more important than his character – it is better to be well-governed by sinners than misgoverned by saints, and you will most likely judge “well-governed” or “misgoverned” in ideological terms, whether you realize it or not – and E-Day is your chance to give the polity a tiny push your way, which generally means a party’s/ideology’s way, not a politician’s way.
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
I think in America the only people who really like such a system are socialist/Communists (whose political ideology has always tended towards almost slavish party loyalty), and leftists in general–who detest individualism and care more about group power in the legislature and not individual power. Finally, I think it actually causes less compromise. In a PR system the parties that form a coalition government essentially rule with an iron fist, their compromise was made in forming the government itself, and once that happens they have no incentive to ever compromise with the other parties out of power. In the American system since neither the Republicans or the Democrats can be 100% certain of getting 100% party support on any specific piece of legislation, it means even when one of them holds a majority in either house they have to come together to get things done. The two party system not only forces compromises within the big tent parties (akin to compromise to form a coalition in PR systems), but it also forces compromise between both parties themselves, which essentially encompasses the entirety of the legislature.
[/QUOTE]
The only caveat I’d put in is that fringe groups in general, whether they be socialist/communist/left wingers or libertarians or even fringe right wingers tend to pine after PR type governments because it gives them their only real shot at circumventing the fact that they ARE fringe players, and don’t represent anything other than a tiny fraction of the population at large…but they still want to wield power and have input, and not the watered down type in the big tent two party system we currently have.
I should say that I don’t think PR is “bad”, nor do I think FPTP single member districts are bad. I think both have positives and negatives associated with them. I personally favor FPTP, but I don’t think PR is a bad way to run a country.
Further, even if I thought PR was better than FPTP I’d have to think it was massively better to justify changing our system of government. If it was just marginally better or a wash, I couldn’t see it being justified.
I think all the benefits of having many small parties are mostly seen by having two big tent parties, it just means instead of having election result pie charts with lots of different colors you have pie charts with two colors, but within those two big slices there really are lots of little slices that just aren’t displayed in their own unique colors. To me it’s like you’re suggesting we change our system of government so we can have more pretty colors in the election result pie charts, and for the small chance that some fringe 1 or 2% party might some day be part of a coalition government and wield undue influence. I think most of the benefits of many small parties are aesthetic and “feel good granola eating” kind of benefits, namely it lets people feel like they never have to hold their nose about any of a candidate’s stances on the issues since they can pick their ultra-customized party from the cafeteria plan of political parties. I understand why some might want that, but I think it’s mostly window dressing with little practical difference.
But again, it’s not bad, I think both systems are good and work and once you’ve set one up I’m not sure there are very good and compelling arguments for doing away with either one. If some other quirks in your system of government (like the filibuster in the U.S. Senate) have lead to undue gridlock I think you should address those quirks not the underlying system itself, which is mostly fine.
Always liked the idea of proportional representation; don’t care for runoff voting. But if I had to take one to get the other, it’d be a compromise I’d be willing to make, so long as I didn’t hurt my chances for its adoption by voting for it. (cough)
I think PR can be more fun, and more creative. Check out Official Monster Raving Loony Party in Wikipedia (sorry I can’t drive this thing well enough yet to put in a link).
Pretty much the reverse is true. In most PR systems the voter will be faced with a choice of candidates from the same party and, whatever factors and criteria he employs to make his choice between the, it cannot be party identification.
This leads to the happy situation in which a party cannot get an unpopular person elected by simple appeal to party loyalty. In the UK, which employes FPTP, it is notorious that in a large number of districts the candidate of a certain party will invariably win. The real competition, therefore, is to secure the nomination of that party and, since there is no equivalent of primary elections, the net result is the the member of parliament for that district is effectively chosen by a committee of local party officials. Stalin would have been proud.
Constrast Ireland, which has multi-seat districts. Each party must nominate (at least) as many candidates as it can optimistically hope to win seats, and the voters decide which candidate(s) they prefer. It’s common for the candidate favoured by the party leadership to lose out to the candidate who is locally popular.
Sure, that means that people have more choice within their party, but it doesn’t mean they’re going to vote for someone from another party. Many Americans actually vote for politicians from different parties from one election to the next; and many do not even have party membership or affiliation.
Except that they vote for people from other parties, too. Overall levels of party support do change, and change significantly, from election to election. If this didn’t happen, there would be no changes of government. And most voters have no party membership and a flexible or no party affiliation.
The point is that PR gives the voter more choice. He can distinguish between dissatisfaction with his member, and dissatisfaction with his party, and vote in a way which reflects one but not the other. An FPTP system gives the voter little or no choice in this regard. The result is a net transfer of power from the voters to the party under FPTP, enabling - as already pointed out - the parties to signficantly control the outcome of elections.
Of course, this does depend on the voters having signficant party loyalty, but this is not a particular feature of PR systems - it’s very evident in the UK, for instance, which is why they have so many “safe seats” that are effectively controlled by parties, rather than by voters.