# Could an alliance of third parties be the way to push proportional representation, etc.? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [January 28, 2013, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-alliance-of-third-parties-be-the-way-to-push-proportional-representation-etc/648593 "2013-01-28T06:07:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-alliance-of-third-parties-be-the-way-to-push-proportional-representation-etc/648593/1 "2013-01-28T06:07:35Z")
The problem with our present system for electing Congresscritters or members of any multimember policymaking body, from any third-partisan’s point of view, is that a first-past-the-post single-member-district system naturally forces a two-party system. Consider: Suppose, in your state’s next election, 10% of the voters vote Libertarian (or substitute Green, or Socialist, or Constitution Party, whatever, same mechanics apply) – how many Libertarians get elected? **None,** because there are not enough Libertarians in **any one district** to form a plurality (majority = 50%+; plurality = more votes than any other candidate gets – which is all you need to win). No political party, therefore, can make it save by being a “big tent” party – which leads to the confusion as to, e.g., just what the GOP stands for these days, when it includes libertarians and paleocons and neocons and theocons and bizcons and those factions don’t always see eye-to-eye. That is why America has **always** had a two-party political system, except when it had a one-party system. There is no room for more than two. Under a proportional representation system (which most of the world’s democracies use, in one form or another), if the Libertarians get 10% of the **votes,** they get (more or less) 10% of the **seats.** There are various forms of PR, but they all have that goal in mind. “[Legislatures in the United States] should be an exact portrait, in miniature, of the people at large, as it should think, feel, reason, and act like them.” – John Adams “… the portrait is excellent in proportion to its being a good likeness,…the legislature ought to be the most exact transcript of the whole society… the faithful echo of the voices of the people.” – James Wilson at the Constitutional Convention. But what we have instead, what the single-member-district winner-take-all system inevitably produces, is more like a distorting funhouse mirror, with some parts of the image-of-the-whole-people grossly exaggerated and others shrunk to invisibility. That is the whole point of [Republican gerrymandering,](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=679138) lately, but they didn’t invent it. It is inherent in the SMD system, in fact. PR makes gerrymandering moot or impossible. See also: [Instant-Runoff Voting:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting) For filling a single seat, presidency, governorship, etc.; though it could also be used to elect legislators. The way it is now, if there are more than two candidates in the race, you have to pick just one – which presents the “spoiler” problem – in 2000, a vote for Buchanan was a vote for Gore and vote for Nader was a vote for Bush. With IRV, you get to rank-order the candidates by preference; if your first choice does not get a majority, your vote still counts to elect your second choice. E.g., you could have voted “1 – Buchanan; 2 - Bush; 3 - Gore; 4 - Nader”; or, “1 - Nader; 2 - Gore; 3 - Bush; 4 - Buchanan”; or whatever order-of-preference seems best to you. (The similar [approval voting](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting) or Condorcet system, where you just vote “yes” or “no” as to each of several candidates, does offer certain abstruse-to-all-but-polysci-nerds-even-worse-than-I advantages over IRV. But, I’m thinking IRV is better for America, because, 1) it’s an easier sell – the chances to rank-order the candidates is more psychologically satisfying to the voter; and 2) the results, how the voters rank-order the candidates, produces information of greater civic value.) [Electoral fusion:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fusion) Simply, one candidate running as the nominee of more than one party (and, perhaps, on more than one ballot line). This strengthens a third party by putting it in a position to offer its endorsement to a major-party candidate (conditional, presumably, on the candidate adopting public positions somewhat closer to the third party’s), which could make all the difference in close races. Fusion is now illegal in most states, however. > [@](#): > > Electoral fusion was once widespread in the United States. In the late nineteenth century, however, as minor political parties such as the People’s Party became increasingly successful in using fusion, state legislatures enacted bans against it. One Republican Minnesota state legislator was clear about what his party was trying to do: “We don’t propose to allow the Democrats to make allies of the Populists, Prohibitionists, or any other party, and get up combination tickets against us. We can whip them single-handed, but don’t intend to fight all creation.”[3] The creation of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party made this particular tactical position obsolete. By 1907 the practice had been banned in 18 states; today, fusion as conventionally practiced remains legal in only eight states, namely: > > Connecticut > Delaware > Idaho > Mississippi > New York > Oregon > South Carolina > Vermont > > In several other states, notably New Hampshire, fusion is legal when primary elections are won by write-in candidates. > > The cause of electoral fusion suffered a major setback in 1997, when the U.S. Supreme Court decided by 6-3 in Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party that fusion is not a constitutionally protected civil right. All these structural/systemic electoral reforms are pro-multipartisan – meaning, the dominant two parties will vote for them when turkeys vote for Christmas. However. Remember how women got the vote in this country? **Not all at once,** that’s how. It was a shocking idea at the time, going against centuries of cultural assumptions that the public realm belongs to men. But California and a few other Western states tried out women’s suffrage, and after a few election cycles with women voting, society there did not collapse; so eventually it became plausible to propose such a reform at the national level. So it could be with proportional representation, etc. – let a few states try it first for electing state legislatures and local councils and commissions and boards, and see what happens. Then the idea of adopting it for the USHoR, even if that requires a constitutional amendment, becomes easier to sell. At present, the biggest obstacle to the introduction of proportional representation in America is that **nobody knows what it is.** I have often asked **candidates for public office** their opinions on it, and always, it turns out, I have to explain the most basic concepts to them. Everybody always seems to think that by “proportional representation” I mean racial gerrymandering or something. The best hope for PR, and Instant-Runoff Voting, and Electoral Fusion, in America, is that, some day soon, all the third-party movements in America, from Communist to Constitution, would awaken to the fact that they have a common interest in such basic structural electoral reforms, and that they should join forces, at least on that one particular set of issues. That would make for a very interesting movement. The question is, can political activists of such widely differing world-views hold their noses and work together? [Third parties in the United States.](http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm) The “Big Three” are the Libertarians, the Greens, and the Constitution Party. If they all signed on for an electoral-reform movement, the others probably would follow. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-alliance-of-third-parties-be-the-way-to-push-proportional-representation-etc/648593/2 "2013-01-28T06:21:49Z")
Then what would happen? The full weight of the Libertarian, Green, and Constitution parties combined couldn’t push a Chevette. You also have to convince people that letting third parties have a slice of the power is a _good_ thing. One of the consequences of a system that pushes third parties out is that the parties fill up with cranks and weirdos. With the current parties and their colorful views and personalities, you run the risk of people learning how PR works and then thinking it means giving the lunatics a say in how the asylum works. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-alliance-of-third-parties-be-the-way-to-push-proportional-representation-etc/648593/3 "2013-01-28T06:25:31Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > You also have to convince people that letting third parties have a slice of the power is a _good_ thing. One of the consequences of a system that pushes third parties out is that the parties fill up with cranks and weirdos. Oh, we’d have David Duke or someone like him in Congress, all right. But we’d also have Louis Farrakhan or someone like him; they’d balance each other out, and sometimes one or the other might actually have an idea worth seriously considering. If not, no harm done. Nothing in a PR Congress would get done unless enough parties to form a majority lined up behind it. I think of that as a safety-valve thing: Just perhaps if Timothy McVeigh had been able to look to Congress and see at least one David Duke spouting his message of race-hate on the taxpayers’ dime, he might not have felt so frustrated that he had to express his political views through mass murder. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-alliance-of-third-parties-be-the-way-to-push-proportional-representation-etc/648593/4 "2013-01-28T06:31:36Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > Then what would happen? The full weight of the Libertarian, Green, and Constitution parties combined couldn’t push a Chevette. > > You also have to convince people that letting third parties have a slice of the power is a _good_ thing. One of the consequences of a system that pushes third parties out is that the parties fill up with cranks and weirdos. With the current parties and their colorful views and personalities, you run the risk of people learning how PR works and then thinking it means giving the lunatics a say in how the asylum works. One reason why the third parties are so extreme is that because they have no chance of political power they can be as ideologically pure as they want. In places with multiparty systems such as Germany, the Netherlands, or Sweden most of the parties are relatively sensible with some exceptions (such as the Communist-apologist Linke in Germany or the theocratic Calvinist SGP and the PETA-esque Party of the Animals in the Netherlands). One good example is if one compares the German Free Democratic Party with the American Libertarians-both are of a libertarian bent but the former wants a streamlined, leaner welfare state not pure minarchism. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Oh, we’d have David Duke or someone like him in Congress, all right. But we’d also have Louis Farrakhan or someone like him; they’d balance each other out, and sometimes one or the other might actually have an idea worth seriously considering. I think the saying “What’s original isn’t good and what’s good isn’t original” applies here. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-alliance-of-third-parties-be-the-way-to-push-proportional-representation-etc/648593/5 "2013-01-28T06:34:59Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > I think the saying “What’s original isn’t good and what’s good isn’t original” applies here. 😕 I don’t see how. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-alliance-of-third-parties-be-the-way-to-push-proportional-representation-etc/648593/6 "2013-01-28T06:41:09Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 😕 I don’t see how. What I meant was that if David Duke or Louis Farrakhan does have a good idea its probably already being proposed by a saner politician. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-alliance-of-third-parties-be-the-way-to-push-proportional-representation-etc/648593/7 "2013-01-28T06:46:40Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > What I meant was that if David Duke or Louis Farrakhan does have a good idea its probably already being proposed by a saner politician. True. But, I have heard Libertarians propose good ideas that only Libertarians would have thought of, e.g., deregulating jitneys. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-alliance-of-third-parties-be-the-way-to-push-proportional-representation-etc/648593/8 "2013-01-28T12:23:33Z")
Here’s the problem. I might vote for, say, a Reform Party candidate if the right one came along. Perhaps I liked Ross Perot. So, I vote Reform Party, and then at the caucus, they elect Pat Buchanan to fill the one seat that my vote helped elect. That would be unacceptable to me. Very few people are straight ticket voters. If I vote Republican, who do I get to fill the seat? David Duke or Susan Collins? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-alliance-of-third-parties-be-the-way-to-push-proportional-representation-etc/648593/9 "2013-01-28T14:12:38Z")
The idea that David Duke and Louis Farrakhan are simply going to neutralize each other, as though they are simply ions or chemical compounds, and allow all the normal politicians go about their business is terribly naive. Relations within a group virtually always degenerates to give squeaky wheels more grease than they deserve. That’s true at work, your condo association, customer service desks, and legislatures alike. I see no benefit to the country to giving racists, conspiracy theorists, religious fundamentalists, or other kooks any recognition within the running of our government. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-alliance-of-third-parties-be-the-way-to-push-proportional-representation-etc/648593/10 "2013-01-28T14:29:56Z")
I wouldn’t mind if we had a third branch of Congress that had PR. We could relegate the Senate to more of a House of Lords position in that they are able to advise and delay, which would get around the constitutional prohibition against diminishing Senatorial representation by the states. Instead, move the Senate’s _powers_ to a new branch, consisting of 99 or 102 members, only 33/34 of which are elected every 2 years by Proportional Representation. The cutoff for getting a seat would be 3%, which seems about right. Plus it would avoid the problem of huge swings when the electorate is unhappy with the ruling coalition over something temporary (or is my impression of other countries overblown?) I share **jtgain** ’s concern, but we could address it by having a formalized voting for candidates within a party before we cast our votes for the party. Or, at least, have the candidates _publshed_ beforehand, in order, so if you know beforehand whether the first candidate from the Reform Party is going to be Ross Perot or Pat Buchanan. Of course, there’s the problem of, if Buchanan is number 2, whether you’ll want to vote for the Reform Party and possibly give Pat Buchanan a seat if the Reform Party does extremely _well_… But I also think we should have a way to directly elect people to represent us. And the House of Representatives is about the right granularity, as Senators representation is diffused among too many people. But I’m not sure what to do about gerrymandering. It may be one of those unsolvable political issues (and by that I mean provably unsolvable by political science due to conflicting goals, not just a very difficult problem.) ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-alliance-of-third-parties-be-the-way-to-push-proportional-representation-etc/648593/11 "2013-01-28T14:40:24Z")
What is proposed seems to me a solution in search of a problem. The two party system has worked well for over 150 years, the only reason it doesn’t work now is that one party has been taken over by its own batshit crazy faction. Either the Republicans purge the cancer within it, or it perishes and is replaced by a new rational alternative to the Democrats. Everybody’s darling on this board, the libertarians, don’t offer anything constructive. Nor do any of the other unimportant parties. If and when they do have a good idea, it will be adopted by one of the important parties. They don’t need a seat in the Congress to accomplish that. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-alliance-of-third-parties-be-the-way-to-push-proportional-representation-etc/648593/12 "2013-01-28T14:55:29Z")
Another problem is that I’m not sure the third parties _want_ a seat in the legislature. Many of them seem to be fixated on the top of the heap or nothing. Consider that you _always_ see a Libertarian, Green, Natural Law, Constitution, etc. candidate for President, but when was the last time you saw candidates from those parties in the House or Senate races? At best, you’ll get one third-party running for those, and usually not even that. Which doesn’t actually make much sense: If (say) the Libertarians sunk as many resources into the legislature as they do into the Presidency, they probably _could_ find one district somewhere that they could flip, and that one seat could end up wielding significant power, in a closely-divided chamber. But they don’t, because they’re more interested in the glory than they are in actually pursuing their agenda. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-alliance-of-third-parties-be-the-way-to-push-proportional-representation-etc/648593/13 "2013-01-28T15:21:42Z")
There are two major problems with third parties in the US. 1. Most 3rd parties are in the extreme side of the political spectrum. To be sucessful, a party would have to cull from the moderates of each side of the aisle. Imagine if a party started based on fiscal responsibility (expenditures can never be more than 110% of revenue) and social progressivism (not anarchy) on issues such as abortion and SSM. How many would think about joining a Centrist Party? Or supposed a Neo-Federalism. Not what we have now with each party using the federal government to intercede to promote their own ideology but rather the intention of the founding fathers with the Feds restricted to their enumerated powers, overturn Dole v SD, redefine interstate commerce so it is actual interstate commerce again. How many people would consider voting for a Neo-Federalist Party? 2. In many states, the laws are written by Dems & Pubs to make starting a third party very difficult. While I agree with the state that a political party should be more than a guy and his 5 friends, there should also be a way for third parties to build. Rather than looking at it as X number of Coloradans need to be members to start a state-wide party how about being able to have a party qualify at the municipal level for mayoral or council elections? What about qualifying at the state legislature district level or even Congressional district level? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-alliance-of-third-parties-be-the-way-to-push-proportional-representation-etc/648593/14 "2013-01-28T15:26:50Z")
**BrainGlutton** , this is a perfectly legitimate topic for debate, but don’t use the board to encourage Dopers to join political organizations. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-alliance-of-third-parties-be-the-way-to-push-proportional-representation-etc/648593/15 "2013-01-28T15:33:57Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Another problem is that I’m not sure the third parties _want_ a seat in the legislature. Many of them seem to be fixated on the top of the heap or nothing. Consider that you _always_ see a Libertarian, Green, Natural Law, Constitution, etc. candidate for President, but when was the last time you saw candidates from those parties in the House or Senate races? At best, you’ll get one third-party running for those, and usually not even that. Which doesn’t actually make much sense: If (say) the Libertarians sunk as many resources into the legislature as they do into the Presidency, they probably _could_ find one district somewhere that they could flip, and that one seat could end up wielding significant power, in a closely-divided chamber. But they don’t, because they’re more interested in the glory than they are in actually pursuing their agenda. Sorry for the double-post but this is a +1. Could you imagine the power of that third party vote in a 59-40-1 Senate? More likely would be in the House with the likes of Michelle Bachmann and Maxine Waters getting elected. Taking 5 seats from each party we would have a 229-196-10 breakdown. Maybe not enough to break the Pub majority but it would make things interesting. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-alliance-of-third-parties-be-the-way-to-push-proportional-representation-etc/648593/16 "2013-01-28T16:23:20Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Here’s the problem. I might vote for, say, a Reform Party candidate if the right one came along. Perhaps I liked Ross Perot. So, I vote Reform Party, and then at the caucus, they elect Pat Buchanan to fill the one seat that my vote helped elect. That would be unacceptable to me. That being a predictable problem, the Reform Party might avoid it by having the nominating-caucus **before** the election – in fact, that might be required by law – to get on the ballot in a PR race, a party must submit a list of nominated candidates, rank-ordered – i.e., if we win one seat, it goes to John Doe; if we win two, they go to John Doe and Richard Roe, etc., all that specified on the ballot. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-alliance-of-third-parties-be-the-way-to-push-proportional-representation-etc/648593/17 "2013-01-28T16:27:18Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > **BrainGlutton** , this is a perfectly legitimate topic for debate, but don’t use the board to encourage Dopers to join political organizations. 1. Say fuckin’ **what?!** Never seen that in any forum-rules before. 2. All right, but you deleted a great deal besides my link to FairVote. Can you please put back the remainder of that paragraph? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-alliance-of-third-parties-be-the-way-to-push-proportional-representation-etc/648593/18 "2013-01-28T16:30:19Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > That being a predictable problem, the Reform Party might avoid it by having the nominating-caucus **before** the election – in fact, that might be required by law – to get on the ballot in a PR race, a party must submit a list of nominated candidates, rank-ordered – i.e., if we win one seat, it goes to John Doe; if we win two, they go to John Doe and Richard Roe, etc., all that specified on the ballot. As was mentioned above, what if I like John Doe, but think that Richard Roe is an idiot and under no circumstances should he be elected. Do I risk voting for the Reform Party so that John Doe can win, but in doing so taking the chance that Richard Roe might make it? ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-alliance-of-third-parties-be-the-way-to-push-proportional-representation-etc/648593/19 "2013-01-28T16:37:28Z")
The OP has a huge problem with optics. I know optics is an ugly, stupid, short-lived buzzword but that makes it the perfect way to describe this. In the 2012 elections, over 90% of blacks voted for Obama. More than 70% of Hispanics did. More than 70% of Asians did as well. For the first time in American history they are poised - at all levels - to start gaining representation _proportional to their numbers_. They are doing so because their demographics are increasing in raw numbers, while the aging white male rural population which has recently been the backbone of the Republican Party is shrinking. That’s what American politics has always been about: using the raw weight of one’s number to force political change and equality against determined opponents. So what does the OP propose? To have a group that on the Internet at least - and that’s representative enough since they seem to have no existence anywhere else - is composed overwhelmingly of white males undercut them in their moment of triumph. And why are these white males doing the nasty? Because said white males feel that the current system doesn’t give them enough power. I said, BECAUSE THIS GROUP OF WHITE MALES PROCLAIM THAT THEY DON’T GET ENOUGH CLOUT IN THE CURRENT SYSTEM. Yeah, go ahead and try to make this work. Try to explain that it’s really about anything other than ripping power from the newly emerging minorities turning majorities. The optics say otherwise. But keep pushing for this. And I mean keep pushing for this. Unfortunately I mean it the same way I mean that politicians who say that rape is a good thing because it’s god’s plan should keep pushing it. I want you not only to fail but to totally discredit your plan in the bargain. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-alliance-of-third-parties-be-the-way-to-push-proportional-representation-etc/648593/20 "2013-01-28T16:44:45Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 1. Say fuckin’ **what?!** Never seen that in any forum-rules before. It’s been there forever. > [@SDMB registration agreement as of 12/21/2014](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-registration-agreement-as-of-12-21-2014/620957/1): > > This message board is intended as a medium for public discussion. Do not post spam, including but not limited to advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, solicitations, offers to trade or barter, charitable appeals, or other messages primarily intended to promote a cause, venture, organization, event (except Straight Dope-related events), website, or other entity or activity, whether or not money is involved. You did a great deal more than toss out a link to FairVote, but you said early on, ‘If you don’t like this, join FairVote and support proportional representation’ (I am paraphrasing to the smallest extent) and the whole thing is an argument about why proportional representation is a good idea, which refers back to ‘join FairVote.’ It’s a worthwhile thread topic but I wasn’t comfortable with such a blatant appeal to join a campaign. > [@](#): > > 1. All right, but you deleted a great deal besides my link to FairVote. Can you please put back the remainder of that paragraph? Sure. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-alliance-of-third-parties-be-the-way-to-push-proportional-representation-etc/648593.md?page=2)