A multiparty system is better for America than a two-party system

[BrainGlutton]

@Indistinguishable

Indeed. BrainGlutton, could you please respond to these criticisms of IRV?

While interesting, the choice as between IRV and approval voting is essentially a technical argument, and essentially irrelevant to the thread topic, to wit, the argument that a multiparty system as such is preferable to a two-party system as such. If we have to wrangle over different pro-multipartisan voting systems, let’s do that in a different thread.

[ultrafilter]

So I guess you missed the part where I highlighted that IRV does not lead to a multiparty system? Since that’s what you claim to want, I think you’d regard that as a pretty important fact, not a technical detail.

[XT]

@BrainGlutton

While interesting, the choice as between IRV and approval voting is essentially a technical argument, and essentially irrelevant to the thread topic, to wit, the argument that a multiparty system as such is preferable to a two-party system as such. If we have to wrangle over different pro-multipartisan voting systems, let’s do that in a different thread.

I agree it’s a distraction from the main OP BG, but you should really read the linked article since you seem fixated on IRV. Seems pretty convincing to me that it’s not ‘pro-multipartisan’ at all. YMMV however and I think it’s wise to drop that aspect and focus on the rest.

-XT

[Ludovic]

@Ravenman

Let’s look at the votes over the last few years WRT funding the Iraq war. In essence, there were three parties operating in Congress: the Democratic Party (with an emphasis on a responsible withdrawal from Iraq), the Republican Party (we must stay until victory), and the faction of the Democratic Party known as the Out of Iraq Caucus. None of these “parties” had a majority, and thereby strengthened Bush’s hand in negotiating with Congress to get war funding bills passed with no strings attached.

In this case, the divisions within Congress forced a turning away from the general center-seeking behavior of our government, in general, by providing the President an opportunity to divide and conquer his opposition. Does anyone think that worked well?

Did the “center” party honestly believe that we should not withdraw immediately? Then there was a plurality that honestly believed we should not withdraw immediately. Why they should be beholden to those who want to take a hard line?

[Pleonast]

I think we need to decide how the multi-party system is instituted before we can intelligently comment on its merits.

But let me comment anyway. The problem with the two-party system we have now is that issues are linked that have no inherent connection. Our current system discourages people and politicians from considering each policy separately. Instead once one party picks a position, the other side picks the opposite as a matter of convenience and rarely principle.

In a multi-party system, a party can decide its position on an issue however it likes. It’s alright if it agrees with another party on one. There’s no incentive to always oppose because the political universe is multi-polar, not bi-polar.

With a multi-party system, each issue can be decided on its own popularity, instead of being pushed down or pulled up by being linked to a dozen other policies.

Just as sexual reproduction decouples genes from each other, we need a political system that decouples policies from each other.

[Ravenman]

@Ludovic

Did the “center” party honestly believe that we should not withdraw immediately? Then there was a plurality that honestly believed we should not withdraw immediately. Why they should be beholden to those who want to take a hard line?

The center party wanted strings on the money. Neither of the extremes wanted strings, but for very different reasons – one side said we should pull out immediately so there should be no money, no strings; the other side wanted to stay forever (to be overly simplistic) and so wanted all the money and no strings.

The Republicans won: all the money, no strings; all because that was the president’s position and he was able to divide and conquer his opposition. (IMHO)

[Sage_Rat]

@ultrafilter

And you have consistently either ignored or failed to understand the criticisms of instant runoff voting. It is a fatally flawed system (pdf) and should never be considered, especially when range voting is so clearly superior. Note something important mentioned in both documents: IRV does not favor a multiparty system.

Range voting, as described there, seems to have an issue that someone who is relatively unknown can win by simple virtue of that fact. Anyone who actually knows about him, rates him high, and everyone else leaves the slot blank. The system would select for candidates who kept private and said very little of anything solid. The current system already produces enough of that, in my mind.

[Tom_Tildrum]

@Ravenman

The Republicans won: all the money, no strings; all because that was the president’s position and he was able to divide and conquer his opposition. (IMHO)

Alternatively, the Republicans won on both issues because on each question, they were in coalition with another group (just not the same group). Both the Republicans and the center Democrats agreed that the troops should stay (they didn’t agree on how long, but they agreed on staying) so they defeated the minority that wanted to leave. Both the Republicans and the left Democrats agreed that there should be no strings (albeit for different reasons) so they defeated the minority that wanted strings.

[Maeglin]

@BrainGlutton

While interesting, the choice as between IRV and approval voting is essentially a technical argument, and** essentially irrelevant to the thread topic, to wit, the argument that a multiparty system as such is preferable to a two-party system as such**. If we have to wrangle over different pro-multipartisan voting systems, let’s do that in a different thread.

On this topic, you are wrong with remarkable consistency.

The question of interest really is, what electoral rules generate optimal outcomes given your criteria and constraints. N-parties are (typically) properties or symptoms of these electoral rules. There are a number of terrible electoral rules that can generate multiple parties, but on the whole, it can be demonstrated that they deliver worse social outcomes. So are you really trying to say that the worst rule that generates multiple parties is better than the best rule that generates two?

This makes no sense. Despite the length of your remarks above, you are essentially applying the wrong analysis to the wrong question. These are not just “technical” matters, they are very serious and very real.

[A.Selene]

BrainGlutton - excellent, excellent post. I couldn’t agree more. I would love to live in a country that had a multi-party system. How do we make it happen?

[Attack_from_the_3rd_dimension]

I just started a [thread=517041]new thread[/thread] to discuss the Single Transferable Vote vs First Past the Post, since we’re having a plebiscite in BC next week on this issue.

[BrainGlutton]

@Cisco

What about the alternative of no parties? I like that it would force people to learn something about the candidate.

You’re going in exactly the wrong direction. Political parties have value – something that is clearer in other industrial democracies (where party membership involves actual dues and membership cards) than in the U.S. Parties can formulate clear and programmatic policy alternatives.

Nonpartisan elections were a reform on the agenda of the early-20th-Century Progressives, who preferred a technocratic and purportedly nonideological approach to government (in reaction to the corrupt urban political machines of the time). One of their slogans was, “There is no Democratic or Republican way to pave a street.” Which is patently false and fundamentally misconceived – you still have to decide where the streets go, what neighborhoods will or will not be served, and who will be taxed to pay for them and how; all matters touching on both interest-group and ideological politics. There are better alternatives to machine politics, but nonpartisanship is not one of them. Thanks to the Progressives many American cities have nonpartisan elections now – but it is always known which candidate has which party behind him/her.

From The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Paralyzes Democracy, by Daniel Lazare:

Rather than popular sovereignty, Perot [in 1992] was advancing the theory of sovereignty of the leader as personification of the people. Like every would-be strong man, he was contemptuous of ideas, philosophy, words, and debate. . . . He would walk into that great “talkerie” on Capitol Hill like a latter-day Coriolanus and browbeat the members into submission. The people would beat down everything in their path, acting, of course, through the essential agency of Ross Perot himself. . . .

Needless to say, Perot’s prescription would not have worked. Contrary to mythology, authoritarianism does not result in order. Rather, a system in which all power flows from a single, decidedly erratic individual inevitably winds up being more disordered than whatever it may have replaced. As a businessman with a decidedly uneven track record, Perot would have been lost in the complexities of modern government. His proposal for “electronic town halls,” reminiscent of Napoleon III’s penchant for plebescites and referenda, was a joke. Such meetings would either have resulted in cacaphony with nameless citizens shouting at each other across the airwaves, or they would have been arranged in such a way as to tell the president precisely what he wanted to hear. The people, meanwhile would have no chance to work through the problems themselves, using their own intellects and their own resources. Instead, they would stand by and watch as Perot worked his way through them on their behalf – and no doubt made a fearful botch of it. Shutting the political parties out of the loop, which the Perot program would have accomplished, would have been a giant step backward. Ameirca’s problem was not an excess of political parties, as Perot seemed to think, but a shortage. Where parties in other countries had grown into political factories-cum-universities, in which ideas were hammered out, policies forged, and leaders trained, America’s were still stuck at a mid-nineteenth-century point of development in which they were little more than mutual-aid societies for aspiring politicians. Yet rather than moving American politics forward, Perot would have moved them back to where party development was even more rudimentary. The people would have been more shut out of the political process than ever before.

[BrainGlutton]

BTW: One of the two reasons the Reform Party no longer exists save as a website is that Perot steadfastly refused to let it develop into anything beyond a vehicle for his candidacy; he wouldn’t even allow nomination of candidates for offices other than the presidency. (The other reason is that it was always an ideologically incoherent coalition of activists in the Progressive tradition discussed above, and right-wing-nativist-isolationist populists. A split was inevitable. The Progressive faction of the Reform Party lives on in the Independence Party, the Populist faction in Pat Buchanan’s America First Party.)

[BrainGlutton]

@Pleonast

I do not like proportional representation. It gives too much power to the political parties. I want my representative to depend only on the will of the voters, not also the will of the party bosses who make the party list, to stay in office.

See post #32.

[BrainGlutton]

@smiling_bandit

Political parties in America have incrasing less to do with politics, because people do not vote for parties in America. They vote for individuals, and thaqt’
s a huge difference from virtually every other (possibly no virtually about it) Democracy in the world. Oh sure, now and then some popular candidate shifts elections in Europe, but that’s not the norm. And passing legislation, even in the House, is about shifting opinion of a few leaders, not getting “the Party”
behind the vote.

Quite true, but you are describing all that as if it were an essential element of American political culture. It isn’t, it is a problem to be solved, a circumstance we can change. The comparative weakness of parties as organizations in America is one of those things that was meant as a feature but in practice is a bug.

@smiling_bandit

Second, history distinctly belies your nonsensical claim that multiparty systems are are somehow more stable. I won’t bother going over the history of them all.

Everything else you mention ultimately comes down to a question of values, where you assume yours are self-evidently good, and therefore ignore the value of alternatives.

:eek: Amazing! The spittle-flecks are actually oozing out of my side of the screen!

[BrainGlutton]

@xtisme

As for the OP, this isn’t the first time he’s brought up this subject. As I’ve said in earlier threads on this subject, I don’t think it would work very well in our system. You would end up making the government even more weak and ineffectual, more fragmented with even more contentious infighting and bickering. Nothing would ever get done because you’d need to form rough coalitions of parties that would end up being weak shadows of our current two party system. Green’s would align with other lefty groups and would merge with remnant Dems and we’d still have something like the Democrat party…but more contentious with more infighting and even less effective than what we have. Same goes for the Republican party…a lot of the current factions would probably still end up as a coalition because of politics. Or a lot of these splinter groups would form other larger groups and gum up the works that way…we’d have something like what the English have, but while it works for the English fairly well (they are used to it, and also they are a bit less fragmented than we are) it would be a nightmare here. IMHO of course.

Of course there would be coalitions, but they would be issue-specific coalitions, as described in the OP.

[Richard_Parker]

One of the main factors leading to the deconstruction of the racialist regimes in the post-Confederacy states (especially TX) was that either of the two roughly equally popular white candidates could win by getting a small percentage of the newly enfranchised black voters. This is one of the main features of a first-past-the-post system, each marginal vote is extremely important. That causes problems, of course, but it has its benefits to an extremely ethnically diverse society like our own. It prevents balkanization and encourages racial political cooperation.

We also have a First Amendment tradition in the US that prevents interference with parties and their associational rights that is permitted elsewhere in the world. That means that the proportional representation, fusion voting, etc., would likely operate quite differently here unless we revisited the First Amendment.

[BrainGlutton]

@Ravenman

I almost regret my first post… but I couldn’t help it, the OP was just so long! (And interesting, too.)

Relating to xtisme’s point, what non-parliamentary republics have multi-party systems, and how does the strength of the executive branches compare to here in the US?

France has a sort of mixed presidential-parliamentary system. It does not have proportional representation, but it still has a multiparty system because of the historical diversity of political movements there. It has a strong executive, but that’s also because of French tradition.

@Ravenman

My concern is that, whatever the benefits of having more viewpoints aired, ultimately making Congress an institution within which different coalitions must be formed to pass any significant legislation, then Congress will become even weaker than it is presently in countering the power of the executive branch. I, for one, think that Congress is too weak now, and would be extremely opposed to electoral reform which further strengthens the executive.

IMO, the best way to strengthen the legislative branch as against the executive is to abolish the Senate and devolve all its powers and functions on the House; but that’s another debate. (All the plans considered by the Constitutional Convention featured a two-house legislature, for the express purpose of weakening the legislative branch by dividing it, because in recent memory most of what the Framers considered abuses of government power had originated in the state legislatures, not the governors; but historical experience since then has taught us that the executive is the greater threat in that regard.)

[Maeglin]

@BrainGlutton

France has a sort of mixed presidential-parliamentary system. It does not have proportional representation, but it still has a multiparty system because of the historical diversity of political movements there. It has a strong executive, but that’s also because of French tradition.

One of the worst byproducts of instant runoff voting occurred during the French election of 2002. Thanks to their multiparty system and runoff voting, Le Pen found himself in the runoff election. The French had to choose between a racist and a crook. Good times.

[BrainGlutton]

@Richard_Parker

One of the main factors leading to the deconstruction of the racialist regimes in the post-Confederacy states (especially TX) was that either of the two roughly equally popular white candidates could win by getting a small percentage of the newly enfranchised black voters. This is one of the main features of a first-past-the-post system, each marginal vote is extremely important. That causes problems, of course, but it has its benefits to an extremely ethnically diverse society like our own. It prevents balkanization and encourages racial political cooperation.

OTOH, as Michael Lind points out in the article linked in post #10, a proportional-representation would make it possible for minority voters to elect minority candidates without any “racial gerrymandering.”

@Richard_Parker

We also have a First Amendment tradition in the US that prevents interference with parties and their associational rights that is permitted elsewhere in the world. That means that the proportional representation, fusion voting, etc., would likely operate quite differently here unless we revisited the First Amendment.

I do not see the relevance of the First Amendment here. Cadre-style political parties in other countries do not exist because the law mandates that form of organization.