# 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:** 3
**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, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-alliance-of-third-parties-be-the-way-to-push-proportional-representation-etc/648593/41 "2013-01-28T21:25:44Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I argued extensively about that in [this thread.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=284249) Please review. See also [here,](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=269169)[here,](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=284249) [here,](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=638048) and [here.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=664105) OK, you’ve been consistent on this for years. So have I. > [@](#): > > :rolleyes: :dubious: What bullshit! **Of course** political parties should be about ideologies! **And nothing else!** Issues are not ideologies. They never should be. You don’t change ideologies from election to election and office to office. You don’t even have positions on most issues - if you think you do I’d advise you to flip through the Congressional Record and the Federal Register. Ideologies can change over time, but putting them at the center of a party creates fanaticism because it is almost impossible to compromise on ideologies. Politics is compromise. This difference between ideology and issues is at the core of my disagreement with you. > [@](#): > > If we had a PR system, the party **I’d** be backing would be the [Working Families Party.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Families_Party) It is a left-progressive party, not at all what you are thinking of when you think “white males.” Optics, optics, and optics. If you think the perception of third party supporters is incorrect, then you need to work to correct that. The Internet isn’t doing much to help you, though. While you’re at it, show me the support that minorities have for leaving their power base in the Democratic Party to push their ideologies through third parties. Don’t try to convince me; try to convince them. (I live in New York, where the Working Families Party doesn’t even rise to the level of the Very Silly Party in influence.) I don’t think the Elections forum in the Dope - a notorious bastion of white males - is going to do much for winning over minorities. Besides, if you can’t win over white males, then you have a lost cause indeed. ---
**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, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-alliance-of-third-parties-be-the-way-to-push-proportional-representation-etc/648593/42 "2013-01-28T21:37:12Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > I don’t think the Elections forum in the Dope - a notorious bastion of white males . . . Cite, please? > [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > - is going to do much for winning over minorities. Besides, if you can’t win over white males, then you have a lost cause indeed. You **seem** to be saying that it’s a lose-lose, that what appeals to white males will alienate everyone else and vice-versa. I hope that’s **not** what you’re saying. If it were true, nothing in politics would ever get done at all. ---
**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, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-alliance-of-third-parties-be-the-way-to-push-proportional-representation-etc/648593/43 "2013-01-28T21:39:25Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > While you’re at it, show me the support that minorities have for leaving their power base in the Democratic Party to push their ideologies through third parties. No, first you show me the same WRT “white males.” And how is what you’re saying relevant anyway? As I made clear in the OP, the greatest obstacle to PR in America is that **nobody knows what it is,** a situation I am trying in some small way to correct. If they don’t know about it, then of course there is no “support” for it. ---
**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, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-alliance-of-third-parties-be-the-way-to-push-proportional-representation-etc/648593/44 "2013-01-28T21:55:33Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 😕 And I still don’t get **that.** Where is that even coming from?! What “white males” **want** PR? Those in the Libertarian and Constitution parties, perhaps, certainly not Republicans. White male Republican here and I favor PR. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-alliance-of-third-parties-be-the-way-to-push-proportional-representation-etc/648593/45 "2013-01-28T21:56:14Z")
**BG** , you’re wrong with this one. The way to get PR (proportional representation) going is to find people who are now voting for GOP and Dem candidates but want a way to make them more accountable. You don’t get that by a coalition of the “crazies,” as much as by convincing people who don’t vote for third parties now to support a system where their vote counts for more. Cast PR as a way to break gerrymandering, as a way to make votes count for more–including votes for GOP and Dems. Because for most of us, that’s what it will be. **Ravenman** , we already have partitocracy in this country. The political parties make people’s careers and extort votes. Weakening the major parties by creating a climate where there are a greater number of viable parties is a way to weaken the abusive party power you decry. Think of it like this. Opening a competitor to Wal-Mart isn’t, “helping retail,” let alone, “helping Wal-Mart.” **Exapno Mapcase** , for what it’s worth, the OP of this thread is wrong, as I said above. But some kind of PR (proportional representation) is a good way to get racial minorities in office, without trying to gerrymander districts where the outcome is a foregone conclusion. Forget the Commies and the minor issue-based parties; they’re not important, and they won’t be. There are more Hispanic voters than Libertarian voters. If someone wants to vote his ethnicity–or his religion, or his taste in cheese–PR lets him do that. So a Chicano in Jasper County, Missouri can vote for a Hispanic or pro-Hispanic candidate _on that basis_, and _get that candidate in office_, if that’s his choice. As it stands now, everyone in Jasper County is represented by some white Anglo who probably got the job through making pledges to the GOP and Grover Norquist, and nobody’s vote means a thing. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-alliance-of-third-parties-be-the-way-to-push-proportional-representation-etc/648593/46 "2013-01-28T22:07:53Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > 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. Ravenman, have you even TRIED putting these two in a beaker together? Eh? Eh? ---
**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, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-alliance-of-third-parties-be-the-way-to-push-proportional-representation-etc/648593/47 "2013-01-28T22:34:29Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > **Ravenman** , we already have partitocracy in this country. The political parties make people’s careers and extort votes. Weakening the major parties by creating a climate where there are a greater number of viable parties is a way to weaken the abusive party power you decry. > > Think of it like this. Opening a competitor to Wal-Mart isn’t, “helping retail,” let alone, “helping Wal-Mart.” If the law were to recognize that brick and mortar stores are the official place to buy retail goods, I’d complain that shopping online is a better deal. If you want proportional representation, you get it one of two ways: strengthen parties to create slates, or create large multimember districts. I think both systems suck. ---
**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, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-alliance-of-third-parties-be-the-way-to-push-proportional-representation-etc/648593/48 "2013-01-28T22:42:45Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Cite, please? OMGABC 😃 > [@](#): > > You **seem** to be saying that it’s a lose-lose, that what appeals to white males will alienate everyone else and vice-versa. I hope that’s **not** what you’re saying. If it were true, nothing in politics would ever get done at all. Once again, I’m asking you how it will look to people who are not ideologues of your stripe. If it is seen as a way to prevent minorities from gaining the power that seems within their grasp, it will fail even if it is a good idea. It’s not a good idea, IMO, but that’s irrelevant. You’re a utopian who sees only a total change of the system as a way to cure it. I see utopians as people who doom us to the status quo. They call for total change as step one. And that insures that nothing in politics ever gets done at all. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-alliance-of-third-parties-be-the-way-to-push-proportional-representation-etc/648593/49 "2013-01-28T23:02:48Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I’m not saying anything about de minimus standards. Libertarians are fringe. The Green Party is fringe. The Constitution Party is fringe. I see no reason to reform the electoral system to accommodate these parties if they have weak support. Once they start garnering significant percentages of the vote – let’s say, 30 percent or something – I _might_ start calling them non-fringe. It’s more likely, however, if the Constitution Party starts polling a 40% that I will regard this country as being well down the road to the loony bin. But that’s what I mean - and you mean - by de minimus. A minimum amount of the vote you have to get. Just don’t set it at the ridiculously high 30 percent, and you’ll be set. Otherwise it’s not PR. I don’t care what you call them. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-alliance-of-third-parties-be-the-way-to-push-proportional-representation-etc/648593/50 "2013-01-28T23:06:41Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > It has worked in the past. That doesn’t mean it will work the same way in the future. But I really wasn’t debating whether the Virginia action was good or bad, but of the way it was perceived by minorities. Okay. > [@](#): > > Who says? > > I mean this very seriously. When both parties had liberal, moderate, and conservative wings it was rational to say you were voting for the candidate. In today’s political climate, it is at least as rational to vote entirely based on parties. Maybe, but today’s political climate is a product of the system too. Ultimately, party is an irrational way to vote, since candidates within parties may disagree as much as between them. There are still moderates and extremists. ---
**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, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-alliance-of-third-parties-be-the-way-to-push-proportional-representation-etc/648593/51 "2013-01-28T23:08:06Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Once again, I’m asking you how it will look to people who are not ideologues of your stripe. If it is seen as a way to prevent minorities from gaining the power that seems within their grasp, it will fail even if it is a good idea. How could it possibly be seen as **that?** You have yet to explain that point in a way that makes any sense. ---
**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, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-alliance-of-third-parties-be-the-way-to-push-proportional-representation-etc/648593/52 "2013-01-28T23:12:40Z")
You know what I’d really like to see? Monte Carlo democracy. Choose all of the members of, say, the House of Representatives by lot. Or leave a minimal amount of choice in it: Say, choose 435 registered voters completely at random as electors, and then each of those electors can choose _anyone they want_ to fill a seat. Electors could pick established politicians, or that guy down at the bar who always seems to know what he’s talking about, or themselves if they wanted. This way you’d be guaranteed, on average, to be exactly representing the nation, across every demographic detail, without any of the paradoces of voting. Yeah, you’d get the occasional cranks, idiots, and crackpots chosen, but in a large enough body, their voices shouldn’t be too significant. ---
**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, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-alliance-of-third-parties-be-the-way-to-push-proportional-representation-etc/648593/53 "2013-01-28T23:24:52Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > But that’s what I mean - and you mean - by de minimus. A minimum amount of the vote you have to get. Just don’t set it at the ridiculously high 30 percent, and you’ll be set. Otherwise it’s not PR. > > I don’t care what you call them. Let me state this a clearer way that I should have thought of before: my standard saying that a political party is full of kooks is a qualitative judgment, not a quantitative one. There is no de minimis percentage beyond which a political party is legitimized in my view. So no, we do not agree on this at all. ---
**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, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-alliance-of-third-parties-be-the-way-to-push-proportional-representation-etc/648593/54 "2013-01-28T23:38:47Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > You know what I’d really like to see? Monte Carlo democracy. Choose all of the members of, say, the House of Representatives by lot. That is known as [demarchy,](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarchy) or selection by [sortition.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition) It certainly produces a true representative sample of the general public. The downside is that if we elected Congress that way, we would not have a Congress, we would have a focus group; it would be incompetent to do anything but vote up-or-down on proposals from the executive branch. Government is not jury duty; anything as complicated as government should be left to career professionals. ---
**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, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-alliance-of-third-parties-be-the-way-to-push-proportional-representation-etc/648593/55 "2013-01-28T23:40:25Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Let me state this a clearer way that I should have thought of before: my standard saying that a political party is full of kooks is a qualitative judgment, not a quantitative one. There is no de minimis percentage beyond which a political party is legitimized in my view. > > So no, we do not agree on this at all. Well, there is no objective and nonpartisan way, is there, to codify in law a test by which some parties are classified as qualitatively kooky? ---
**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 29, 2013, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-alliance-of-third-parties-be-the-way-to-push-proportional-representation-etc/648593/56 "2013-01-29T00:33:14Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > How could it possibly be seen as **that?** You have yet to explain that point in a way that makes any sense. That you can’t see this even as a possibility says a lot. Utopians are like that. They believe that everybody will see the wonderfulness as soon as it’s explained to them. But the real world doesn’t work like that. Whatever you do makes it worse for some people, partially because utopian schemes are insane\*, partially because they look at the world in an entirely different way. But you need to remember that I’m not trying to convince you of anything. \*Am I really saying that all utopian schemes are prima facie insane? Yes. I’ve spent a great deal of time studying utopias and that is my considered and informed opinion, albeit only an opinion. ---
**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 29, 2013, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-alliance-of-third-parties-be-the-way-to-push-proportional-representation-etc/648593/57 "2013-01-29T00:43:05Z")
> [@](#): > > The downside is that if we elected Congress that way, we would not have a Congress, we would have a focus group; it would be incompetent to do anything but vote up-or-down on proposals from the executive branch. Government is not jury duty; anything as complicated as government should be left to career professionals. You’ll note that I only proposed using it for one of the two houses. In practice, I expect that the representatives so chosen would end up loosely aligning themselves with parties, and that the party functionaries would do most of the actual work, plus of course the Senate could still draft bills and toss them over to the House in the same way they do currently. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-alliance-of-third-parties-be-the-way-to-push-proportional-representation-etc/648593/58 "2013-01-29T01:23:22Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > That you can’t see this even as a possibility says a lot. > > Utopians are like that. They believe that everybody will see the wonderfulness as soon as it’s explained to them. But the real world doesn’t work like that. Whatever you do makes it worse for some people, partially because utopian schemes are insane\*, partially because they look at the world in an entirely different way. > > But you need to remember that I’m not trying to convince you of anything. > \*Am I really saying that all utopian schemes are prima facie insane? Yes. I’ve spent a great deal of time studying utopias and that is my considered and informed opinion, albeit only an opinion. 1. PR is not a “utopian scheme,” it is a system which most of the world’s democracies/republics use in one form or another. It works. (It does present problems when combined with a parliamentary system of government – usually an election returns no majority-party to parliament, so you have to get two or more parties in coalition to “form a government” – but that problem does not arise under an American separation-of-powers system.) 2. I’m **still** waiting for your explanation as to how PR could imply, or serve, or be perceived as serving, a “white male” agenda. I’ve encountered all kinds of objections to it in my time, but never **that.** (Usually the reverse of that, in fact.) Once again, where are you getting this, please?! ---
**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 29, 2013, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-alliance-of-third-parties-be-the-way-to-push-proportional-representation-etc/648593/59 "2013-01-29T01:29:32Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Once again, where are you getting this, please?! Once again, I am getting it from my real world appraisal of the realities of the 2013 political world. The 2013 world didn’t exist until 2013. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-alliance-of-third-parties-be-the-way-to-push-proportional-representation-etc/648593/60 "2013-01-29T01:33:03Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > That you can’t see this even as a possibility says a lot. > > Utopians are like that. They believe that everybody will see the wonderfulness as soon as it’s explained to them. But the real world doesn’t work like that. Whatever you do makes it worse for some people, partially because utopian schemes are insane\*, partially because they look at the world in an entirely different way. > > But you need to remember that I’m not trying to convince you of anything. > \*Am I really saying that all utopian schemes are prima facie insane? Yes. I’ve spent a great deal of time studying utopias and that is my considered and informed opinion, albeit only an opinion. PR is hardly a “utopian scheme.” It’s simply a different way of electing a legislature. Versions of it are used by about 50 or more countries today. Just stop this stuff please, and discuss it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-alliance-of-third-parties-be-the-way-to-push-proportional-representation-etc/648593.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-alliance-of-third-parties-be-the-way-to-push-proportional-representation-etc/648593.md?page=4)