Oh, you mean the Demublicans?
I agree with you 100%, Brainglutton. The only rational opposition to PR I can see is the corporate interests that have invested in the current ‘oligarchy’ (for lack of a better term), and I wouldn’t lose any sleep over that.
As far as your list of parties that the electorate could split into goes, how do you think a party that endorsed some form of competitive federalism and specifically had no stance on issues that it considered state/local issues would do? Such a party could theoretically have supporters from every one of Pew’s groupings (although in reality it would almost certainly appeal more to the right).
I would think that legislative stalemates and federal govt. inefficiency would boost the support of this kind of party. People would want to shift power back towards the state level where the political demographics would more than likely not be an almost perfect split of 10 groups of 10% each and a consensus could be more easily reached.
Even if such a party never had the slightest bit of success in shifting power, just its existence could act as a quasi-market force on the federal government. Knowing that such a shift could take place would pressure government at the federal level to be more responsive and efficient.
Sorry for the slight hijack, but I’m just curious to see what you think about the scenario, since you are obviously very interested in politics in general and not just the partisan poo slinging.
I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “competitive federalism,” but the Greens, the America First Party and the Libertarians are all decentralist on principle.
What I meant was a party that would shift enough government programs and taxes to the state level to create a sort of competitive force between states to prevent excessive taxation or ineffeciency (because the federal govenment would guarantee the right of citizens/business to relocate to other states, maybe even subsidize it a little if more competetive force was desired). What would separate it from other decentralist parties would be that it was a federal party only that had no specific stance on state level affairs. It might pull substantial support from all the parties you mentioned (also the Independence Party is decentralist) and maybe a little support from other parties that aren’t generally decentralist if they feel their agenda might do better at the state level.
Anyway, it was just a thought that was going through my head reading this thread. I was wondering about the different coalitions that would form, and the issue of states rights seemed different than all the others because it could be supported by almost all the different groupings independent of their other views. Not that it necessarily would be. Just a thought.
Well, in our present system, businesses and citizens already have the right to relocate from state to state (although no federal subsidies are allocated for the purpose). And in fact there is often a “race to the bottom” process, with different states or localities offering looser environmental or labor regulations, lower taxes, even special tax breaks and subsidies, to entice businesses to relocate there and provide local jobs. Furthermore, most large- to medium-sized corporations in America are incorporated in Delaware because of that state’s corporation-friendly laws – a state of affairs which does nothing to benefit workers or consumers, but does provide a steady stream of income for Delaware attorneys. Delaware has long since run the race to the bottom in this area, and would relax its laws still further to prevent any other state stealing this advantage (much like the way New Hampshire makes it a legally established policy to schedule its presidential primary before any other state’s). (There is no federal law for chartering a corporation, so all business corporations in the U.S. must be chartered in some state.) Whether all of this is a good thing is debatable. Personally I think it shows the need for more regulation standardized on the national or even international level. If there were international standards for working conditions, labor organizing rights and environmental regulations, maybe we Americans wouldn’t be watching so many of our jobs being outsourced abroad.
BrainGlutton, we agree so much on this topic it is almost worth not posting to this thread. Almost. But I like to read myself, so vanity reigns. 
Bottom line is that I think a multi-party system is a must for any representative government. It is, to me, the best compromise between direct democracy and representation. You get the benefit of representation (i.e., salvaged opportunity cost of the citizenry) and the benefit of competing solutions to political problems.
I think your OP spells the case very clearly, should the emprical data hold up, but there are ideological arguments that I think bear mentioning.
A liberal democracy, or republic, should focus on the marketplace of ideas as the expression of freedom. We accept this almost dogmatically in the market per se, but I think it is just as clearly needed in the political realm, if for no other reason than because the political realm serves to create a context for market behavior (most commonly, rule of law). If the mechanism is good for regulating the market (in a libertarian sense) then why wouldn’t it be good for regulating the market in a meta-market (which is to say, governmental) sense? Which is to say, or rather to ask those who would suggest otherwise, what is special about government that competition is not ideal? In the market, it is competing actualization, that is, ideas given saleable form, which are up for competition. In politics, it is ideas as such which are up for competition.
Is there something special about actualization that demands a difference between mechanisms for handling competition?
To me, the answer is definitely “no”. Ideas as such need a mechanism for competition, and that competition needs to be a forum for transparency. What good is a label like “democrat” if it logically holds concepts like political moderates and the fringe left? What good is a label like “conservative” if we cannot immediately distinguish “social” conservatives from “fiscal” conservatives? To me, not much. The answer to this problem is not, “people need to be less lazy and study the issues.” That fights human nature and in fact the very character of progress (which is to use technology and intelligence to circumvent or multiply labor). Instead the answer is to work with human nature and make the political process more transparent.
This is done with multiple parties that can adopt a clearer stand on various topics. To use a board example, if I sat elucidator and Diogenes in a room, I’d bet even money that there’s plenty to disagree on. Same with, say, manhattan and brutus, or Liberal and 2sense… which is to say, you can pick almost any two people and they’ll agree on some things and not others, but no two-party system can adequately group the population.
The only answer is a multi-party system. The best way to accomplish this for Congress is to change the voting system to something other than plurality voting, like instant runoff voting or other systems which allow a ranking or multi-vote ballot.
[QUOTE=erislover]
Bottom line is that I think a multi-party system is a must for any representative government. It is, to me, the best compromise between direct democracy and representation. You get the benefit of representation (i.e., salvaged opportunity cost of the citizenry) and the benefit of competing solutions to political problems.
[QUOTE]
“Salvaged opportunity cost”?
Nitpick: With our system the way it is at present, I think local- and state-level action will have to precede any action by Congress. And, in fact, that’s where the action is in voting reform right now: San Francisco recently adopted IRV for municipal elections – the first IRV election to the Board of Supervisors will take place this November. Any town, city or county government could move to IRV if state law does not prevent that – which it might, depending on the state.
Ballot fusion or cross-endorsement, as I explained above, is illegal in all but 10 states – but that ban is not, so far as I know, enshrined in any state constitution, and can be changed by ordinary state legislation.
Proportional representation is a much tougher sell, mainly because most Americans have never heard of it and it’s not that easy to explain. PR at the local level might be achieved by a referendum – a few years ago, San Francisco had a referendum on switching to PR for electing the Board of Supervisors (it failed by about 51-49%).
PR for electing any state legislature would probably require an amendment to the state constitution. IRV for electiing a state legislature might require a constitutional amendment or ordinary legislation, depending on the state.
And before we move to electing Congress by PR, I expect we’ll have to try it out in one or two state legislatures – and work out the bugs. (That is one of the advantages of a federal system – within certain limits, the states can be used as “little laboratories” for political experiments.)
Electing Congress by IRV would be much easier, I think – not systematically, but on a state-by-state basis – that is, the states regulate all their elections, including elections to Congress, and any state legislature could decide to adopt IRV for elections to that state’s congressional districts.
Opportunity cost, in this context, BrainGlutton, as in the cost a person pays to keep up with politics or other affairs. Time is a limited resource. This is the essential roadblock for direct democracy, which is for all purposes an infinite party system.
I agree, but only because third-parties have not done much to solidify any particular geographic area (Eris knows way). But interestingly, securing a geographic region could ensure both a state and federal appointment.
Personally, I think change can be enacted at a congressional level before it can be enacted at a state level; independent victories at a state level represent (to me) an anomoly rather than a sign of any particular trend. But, apart from those disagreement, I think we agree that a change must agree at a lower level than executive appointment. Frankly, I have no preference for a state-by-state progression or a through congressional “overthrow”.
That would be legally possible but not, I think, politically possible. We still have a federal system and our political parties, major and minor, are fundamentally rooted in state-level organizations. Ross Perot tried to do an end-run around that – build a national third party without starting with solid state-level organizations – and how much success did that have? Furthermore, there is a strong conservative – in the sense of change-averse – streak in American political culture. I don’t think such major structural changes as we are proposing here can be sold to the people, unless they are first enacted in a few states and we get a chance to see how they work out in practice – as I said above, “little laboratories.” So if you want to work for change here, the best thing you can do is get involved in your state-level pro-IRV or pro-PR or pro-fusion organization, if there is one in your state – and if there isn’t, the best thing you can do is find some like-minded people and start one! When I say “like-minded people” I mean third-party activists in general. Libertarians and Socialists and Greens and America Firsters and Constitutioners might not agree on anything else – but they all have a common interest in electoral-system reform. Get out there and try to form a local electoral-reform coalition out of activists who, under other circumstances, would not even be on speaking terms with each other. Strange bedfellows, you know? We’re all little voices, but if we get together and pool our strength, we can’t be ignored!
BTW – if you want to put together a multi-party electoral-reform organization, how do you find your state’s chapter of the Libertarian Party, Green Party, America First Party, etc?
Easy: Go to www.politics1.com. Click on the “State/Fed Candidates” button at the top of the page – it will take you to a page (http://www.politics1.com/states.htm) showing a map of the United States. Click on your home state, and you will be taken to a page listing your state’s elected constitutional officers (and everyone challenging them, this election cycle), U.S. senators and representatives (and their challengers), major news media outlets – and political parties. All parties, major and minor, that have active or semi-active organizations in your state. Click on a party’s link and it will take you to its website, or the e-mail address of a contact person, or, if neither is available, information on file with the state election officials showing the addresses of contact persons for that party. From there, it’s just a matter of sending e-mails or snail-mails. Just this week I e-mailed every third party in Florida to try to get their support for Citizens for Instant Runoff Voting in Florida (www.cirv.org). We’ll see what happens.
We’re slightly talking past each other here, BrainGlutton. First, the existing voting mechanism in place for Congress serves defined geographic regions with respect to the House, and the states with respect to the Senate. Personally, I quite like our current government’s basic form, my only beef is with the voting system (and, hence, the two-party system that naturally develops from it). From my own limited experience and investigation, state politics are a bit different from national politics. It seems to me that, given the attention paid to national elections, that third parties would fare best trying to get into the House. They would only need to concentrate on limited geographic areas to do so. If a few Libertarians got into the House it might raise people’s eyebrows a bit more in other areas. There could be a cascading effect not just for the party that made it in, but for other parties as well.
Contrariwise, I don’t think that winning state elections for state seats will have much of an effect on national politics.
But most government functions, even today, are performed by the state or local governments. Getting representation in them is not a trivial goal for any third party.
Here’s another one . . . which I’ve been a bit hesitant to put out there, but what the hell . . . 
7. A multiparty system is more entertaining than a two-party system.
This should be obvious – wouldn’t people pay more attention to politics if more different points of view were in play? Even, if there were a few more charismatic extremists in it? I’m sure most of you would shudder at the thought of David Duke or Louis Farrakhan getting seats in Congress – but if they did, wouldn’t that be a fascinating spectacle? Imagine Duke and Farrakhan standing up on the House floor to debate each other head-to-head! Wouldn’t people watch it like they watch a car wreck or a dogfight or a Faces of Death video?
The entertainment value of politics is not trivial. It gets people interested, and a healthy democracy needs that. It also adds more richness and color to our national culture and history. Man, look at how much mileage American comedians and columnists and commentators and pundits have gotten out of one lousy Oval Office blowjob!
On a more serious note . . . remember “Point-Counterpoint,” the segment of 60 Minutes back in the '70s, when Shana Alexander and Jack Kilpatrick would comment on some issue, from a liberal and conservative POV respectively? Imagine how that would have gone if we had a multi-party system and the segment, to be comprehensive, had had eight or nine commentators instead of just two. It would have had to be a much longer segment, maybe as long as one of the news-coverage segments – but so much, much more interesting to watch! So much more intellectually stimulating! Might even be material for a whole separate show! You don’t get anything like that, on for instance, Crossfire – when’s the last time you saw a Green or a Communist get on a show like that?
I’ve heard of the book, “What’s the Matter With Kansas?” The Republican Party owns the heartland because of “values” issues like gay marriage and abortion. But if voters in those states had a political party that representated traditional values AND working class economic interests (a separate Conservative Democratic party?) it seems the Republicans there would fall out of favor.
A Two Party system doesn’t accurately represent the views of the American people. A pro-life person doesn’t neccesarily want tax cuts for the rich but vote Republican because that’s the only realistic option to advance their pro-life beliefs. Business people don’t neccesariily want to outlaw abortion either but vote for a largely anti-abortion party just to get their tax cuts and laxer environmental laws.
Pat Buchanan’s nativist-populist America First Party (described, with link, in the OP) would meet that description.
A remnant Republican Party – what would remain after the nativist-populists (see above), Libertarians, and religious conservatives (see the Constitution Party, described in the OP) break off and go their separate ways, would be the party of businesspeople, mostly uncomplicated by other agendas.
By multiparty system do you mean a Parliamentary system? After all, we do have more than just two parties running in our (USA) elections, it’s just that the two top parties are almost utterly dominate.
If you’re advocating a parliamentary system, I must disagree. Parlimentary governments require the building of coalitions that far too often give fringe parties far more power than the number their voters should grant.
Italy has a multi-party system and they have changed governments 59 times since the end of World War II. No Italian coalition has remained in power longer than 4 years.
I thought I covered this in the OP and in a couple of posts since: Yes, multiparty systems in Italy, or Israel, have been very unstable, but those are countries that combine proportional representation with a parliamentary system – a parliamentary system being a British-style system where there is no clear division between the legislative and executive branches, and the legislature, after each election, must “form a government,” that is, elect a prime minister and cabinet ministers. If there is no majority party in the parliament, a multiparty governing coalition might be necessary – which is why things can get so unstable, with shifting alliances and interparty politics.
I am proposing we reform our election laws to bring about a multiparty system, without changing from a separation-of-powers system to a parliamentary system at the state or federal level. That way, there is no need for Congress or a state legislature to put together a majority of votes to “form a government” – the president, or governor, is separately elected, and appoints his or her own cabinet secretaries. Therefore, the lack of a majority party in any legislative house does not present a major obstruction to the processes of government.
It would, however, require some basic restructuring of the rules used by both House and Senate. For one thing, there would never again be a “Majority Leader” because there would never again be a majority party. The Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tem of the Senate might have to be elected by multiparty coalitions – not governing coalitions, only a voting coalition put together for that particular decision. (As I explained in the OP, I expect the different parties in Congress would form momentary, issue-specific voting coalitions, with a different party alignment on each field of issues.) Committee chairmanships would have to be assigned under a different system. Michael Lind tackled the committee-chairmanship question in his classic article in The Atlantic Monthly, August 1992, “A Radical Plan to Change American Politics,” to which I would link but those bastards at AM have decided that from now on only subscribers can access their website. As I recall, he recommended a system of committee chairmanships rotating among the leaders of the several parties.
I actually think the political instability in Italy says more about their political culture than their political system, but that’s another discussion. And the political instability in Israel is, well, the best result one could possibly expect under that country’s unique and unenviable circumstances.
Here, these blurbs from the Wikipedia might help clear up the confusion. (Note to mods: All contents of the Wikipedia are “copyleft” material, meaning unlimited duplication and republication are expressly permitted provided the text is quoted verbatim. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_system:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation:
Okay, I dug out a paper copy of Lind’s article in The Atlantic Monthly, August 1992. Here’s how he addresses the congressional-leadership question: