# If America had a multiparty system, which party would you join/support? (poll\]) **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [September 2, 2012, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-america-had-a-multiparty-system-which-party-would-you-join-support-poll/633407 "2012-09-02T01:20:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**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:** [September 5, 2012, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-america-had-a-multiparty-system-which-party-would-you-join-support-poll/633407/61 "2012-09-05T19:27:55Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Ah, but then who owns the patents? There would be political objections to the government owning them – how is it to exploit them properly and bring the new technologies to market? It’s not set up for that like a corporation is. They go into public domain. That’s how we used to do it, with publicly funded research. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2012, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-america-had-a-multiparty-system-which-party-would-you-join-support-poll/633407/62 "2012-09-05T23:10:22Z")
I just noticed that polling is now enabled in the Elections forum. Mods, could I trouble you to move this thread there? Thanx. ---
**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:** [September 6, 2012, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-america-had-a-multiparty-system-which-party-would-you-join-support-poll/633407/63 "2012-09-06T06:05:56Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Well, I do notice the Pubs are running dead last so far, with only two votes – while Constitution has got 5 and the Libertarians have got 29; which says something about the right wing of this Board, I guess. I wonder who the Constitution Party supporters are-the Libertarians are fairly obvious though. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > If you want something combining social conservatism with economic populism, that’s paleoconservatism, and I guess that’s what the Constitution Party (or maybe the America First Party) is for. Only on globalization issues, on other economic issues (like say taxes or welfare programs) the Constitutionalists are far more hardcore than the GOP. As for me I’d probably waffle between the Republicans and the Democrats based on tactical issues. Although perhaps the Whig Party will be stronger after this. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2012, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-america-had-a-multiparty-system-which-party-would-you-join-support-poll/633407/64 "2012-09-06T15:35:31Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > I wonder who the Constitution Party supporters are-the Libertarians are fairly obvious though. > > Only on globalization issues, on other economic issues (like say taxes or welfare programs) the Constitutionalists are far more hardcore than the GOP. > > As for me I’d probably waffle between the Republicans and the Democrats based on tactical issues. Although perhaps the Whig Party will be stronger after this. You mean, the [Modern Whig Party](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_whig_party)? I find, and I think most Americans would find, little to object to in their policies, but I don’t think they’re going anywhere – even if we had a PR system. They appear to be a veterans-based party, and veterans are neither numerous enough nor homogeneous enough to form a consistent general-issues voting bloc. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2012, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-america-had-a-multiparty-system-which-party-would-you-join-support-poll/633407/65 "2012-09-06T19:23:21Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > You mean, the [Modern Whig Party](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_whig_party)? I find, and I think most Americans would find, little to object to in their policies, Other than the fact they appear to be based around the fallacy of the mean. ---
**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:** [September 6, 2012, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-america-had-a-multiparty-system-which-party-would-you-join-support-poll/633407/66 "2012-09-06T21:05:34Z")
I would probably vote for whichever party had the strongest pro-education policies. Since that’s not the defining issue for any of the parties you list, I’m not sure which tent it’d fall under, and it could easily vary from election to election and candidate to candidate. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 8:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-america-had-a-multiparty-system-which-party-would-you-join-support-poll/633407/67 "2012-09-07T08:09:56Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > Especially considering capitalism being very central to the backbone of not only our economy, but as a hallmark of the US since its inception. I don’t think this is true. The founding fathers were essentially pre-capitalist in notion, relying on liberal enlightenment philosophy like that of Locke rather than Adam Smith or Ricardo. They did subscribe to the notion of private property, but that was common in feudal systems too. I really recommend reading Wigan Pier, where Orwell discusses the charges laid against Socialism that it neglects man’s spiritual side by reducing him to an agent of scientific progress. I think such charges were common enough that they informed the disgust for scientists and materialists evinced in Atlas Shrugged (as if ideology were informed by the individuals one chooses to adulate). I’d also recommend checking out [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-3VmF-bWKU) by Amartya Sen. In it, he espouses support for what I consider to be syndicalism. Competition between non-essential industries (greater choice for consumer, natural collapse of unproductive industries, training and welfare for those unemployed so people are less likely to cling onto outdated technology), no overweening state actor (something repudiated by the left-Communists and anarchists, which Lenin attacked in [this work](http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/index.htm)) As for homeopathy, the [Green Party](http://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/13-04-2011-greens-science.html) in the UK have been amenable to evidence on that issue at least (they’re not just the party of any and all disaffecteds). In fact, the homeopaths and other assorted charlatans have been cosying up with the Libertarians in the US as far as I’m aware, since Libertarians have always taken a stand against regulations. > [@cmyk](#): > > fracking…thriving stepping stones Perhaps, but there are significant [environmental impacts](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing#Environmental_impact) which ought to be studied freely, don’t you think? Some of the opposition may be mere NIMBYism, but I think there would be room for scientific evidence if fracking operations were to be considered democratically. > [@That Don Guy](#): > > Even if it is done at a state level, there’s a good chance that most of the representatives from California are going to be from the southern part of the state - good luck getting anybody to listen to you if you are from the north. This is one of the reasons I support direct democracy – local autonomy. Who is to say someone from within 10 miles of me (or in Texas, hundreds of miles) represents my interests on national policy more than a guy who shares the same last name as me, for instance? > [@Lumpy](#): > > What it’s really saying is that the rest of society should be obligated to recognize and respect one’s marriage, and people should face sanctions if they refuse to. How do you interpret Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 8:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-america-had-a-multiparty-system-which-party-would-you-join-support-poll/633407/68 "2012-09-07T08:20:51Z")
Missed edit window: It’s worth reading [this part of Capital too](http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch33.htm) (take it with a pillar of salt, if you will). > [@Chronos](#): > > I would probably vote for whichever party had the strongest pro-education policies. Would this include public education? What do you think of Rick Perry or Ron Paul’s stances on education? ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 11:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-america-had-a-multiparty-system-which-party-would-you-join-support-poll/633407/69 "2012-09-07T11:12:05Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > How do you interpret Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? I’m not sure what you mean. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-america-had-a-multiparty-system-which-party-would-you-join-support-poll/633407/70 "2012-09-07T12:59:09Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > I don’t think this is true. The founding fathers were essentially pre-capitalist in notion, relying on liberal enlightenment philosophy like that of Locke rather than Adam Smith or Ricardo. They did subscribe to the notion of private property, but that was common in feudal systems too. > > I really recommend reading Wigan Pier, where Orwell discusses the charges laid against Socialism that it neglects man’s spiritual side by reducing him to an agent of scientific progress. I think such charges were common enough that they informed the disgust for scientists and materialists evinced in Atlas Shrugged (as if ideology were informed by the individuals one chooses to adulate). Isn’t it? Feudalism in any culture adulates the warrior-aristocrat; European Christian feudalism adds the saint alongside him; mercantilism adulates the merchant; Jeffersonian democracy adulates the yeoman farmer; Marxism adulates (the Marxist intellectual’s conception of) the proletarian factory-worker; etc. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-america-had-a-multiparty-system-which-party-would-you-join-support-poll/633407/71 "2012-09-07T13:12:07Z")
> [@That\_Don\_Guy](#): > > The problem is, there’s no guarantee that any of them - for that matter, anybody - will represent you in particular. With the current system, there is somebody who is “your” representative in Congress. Okay, maybe they represent a different political party than yours, but if your area needs something done, you can say, “Let’s take it to Congressman \_\_\_\_\_\_”. However, with strict proportional representation, everybody represents the party and the nation. Even if it is done at a state level, there’s a good chance that most of the representatives from California are going to be from the southern part of the state - good luck getting anybody to listen to you if you are from the north. > > Okay, who just said, “And having your representative ‘represent’ just the political party at the national level is different from how it works now in what way?” As one of Heinlein’s author-avatars remarked in _The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress,_ “Surely where a man lives is the least important thing about him.” Nevertheless, if that’s important to you, there is more than one form of [proportional representation,](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation) and the principle of geographic/community representation can be preserved in some of them. Some forms have a “multi-member district” – e.g., take our present districting system but merge five districts into one, then the larger district elects a five-member delegation by P.R. – every one of them has a geographic connection to you, and at least one of them probably represents your politics as well. Other forms have a “mixed-member” system combining district-representatives and party-representatives in the same house. In the U.S., since we have a two-house legislature to start with (which IMO is a bad idea in and of itself, but that’s another discussion), we could, e.g., keep the House as it is, representing single-member districts, and elect the Senate by straight national party-list PR; or vice-versa. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-america-had-a-multiparty-system-which-party-would-you-join-support-poll/633407/72 "2012-09-07T13:18:52Z")
In [this article from 1992,](http://www.theatlantic.com/past/politics/congress/lindf.htm) Michael Lind argues that we could adopt a multi-member-district PR system for electing the House of Representatives without even amending the Constitution. > [@](#): > > What would it take to install proportional representation for members of the House of Representatives? Nothing more than an act of Congress. No constitutional amendment is necessary. Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution states, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.” This gives Congress the power to preempt all state electoral laws and to mandate a system of multimember districts with proportional representation for electing members of the House of Representatives. > > Because the idea of PR is to give electoral representation not only to parties or candidates that win by slight pluralities or majorities but also to second-, third-, and fourth-place winners, it requires multimember districts. The best way to adapt PR to American conditions would be to consolidate present contiguous congressional districts into multimember districts with some manageable number of members–seven, say, or nine. The larger the number elected from a multimember district, the smaller the number of voters needed to elect at least one representative to the House. Now, there is a problem with that, since some states are so sparsely populated that they elect only one member to the House – the whole state being one district-at-large – and the Constitution guarantees each state at least one representative (Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3), and I don’t think there’s any constitutional provision allowing two or more states to have a shared delegation. ---
**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:** [September 7, 2012, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-america-had-a-multiparty-system-which-party-would-you-join-support-poll/633407/73 "2012-09-07T23:26:16Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > You mean, the [Modern Whig Party](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_whig_party)? I find, and I think most Americans would find, little to object to in their policies, but I don’t think they’re going anywhere – even if we had a PR system. They appear to be a veterans-based party, and veterans are neither numerous enough nor homogeneous enough to form a consistent general-issues voting bloc. I think if they strategized by focusing solely on electing one candidate to Congress (in the current system), they could serve to attract moderate Libertarian types who are not total laissez-faire advocates. ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-america-had-a-multiparty-system-which-party-would-you-join-support-poll/633407/74 "2012-09-07T23:53:54Z")
Although I’ve never belonged to any political party myself, I’d still do what I’ve always done: Vote Democratic if there’s a candidate of that stripe, vote Green if there’s one of those but no Dem candidate offered, and wipe my ass with the ballot if there’s a Libertarian candidate. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2012, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-america-had-a-multiparty-system-which-party-would-you-join-support-poll/633407/75 "2012-09-08T00:03:11Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > I think if they strategized by focusing solely on electing one candidate to Congress (in the current system), they could serve to attract moderate Libertarian types who are not total laissez-faire advocates. Perhaps, but, in the current system, **actually** electing a third-partisan or an independent to Congress is almost impossible. The only one now there that I know of is [Bernie Sanders.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders) ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2012, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-america-had-a-multiparty-system-which-party-would-you-join-support-poll/633407/76 "2012-09-08T12:35:50Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Isn’t it? [Not necessarily](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3aniiKuxL8) :p. > [@Lumpy](#): > > I’m not sure what you mean. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognises marriage as a fundamental right. I’m not sure if this predicates state recognition of marriage, but I have no problem with absolutely no recognition of marriage on behalf of the state or states. It’s the discriminatory application of recognition I have a problem with. Edit: Those voting Libertarian, do you think the party can survive in big tent phase with paleolibertarians like Hans Herman-Hoppe or Pat Buchanan represented alongside the bleeding heart utilitarian libertarians like Roderick Long, or will there be further factional splits? ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2012, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-america-had-a-multiparty-system-which-party-would-you-join-support-poll/633407/77 "2012-09-08T15:39:47Z")
I’m thinking that the Hans-Herman Hoppe types aren’t that big on [the whole democracy thing](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy:_The_God_That_Failed) in general. I’d guess the basic split would be between the Ron Paul folks and the crowd over at [mises.org](http://mises.org) on the one hand, and everyone associated with the various tentacles of the Kochtopus on the other. Or between the cranks and the shills for plutocracy might be a better way to put it. As for me, I suppose I’d go with the WFP. Contrary to what **Astorian** thinks, there are decidedly a few of us working class people who are down with a leftist social agenda. My goal, I suppose, would be to return to the days before labor purged all its radicals in the Cold War, and they got left with pro-war anti-communists like Georg Meany. The WFP seems like the best vehicle for a stronger and more progressive labor movement, and a left that recognizes labor as a central issue. The division between labor issues and social issues has probably been where the left has been shooting itself in the foot most consistently over the past seventy or so years. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2012, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-america-had-a-multiparty-system-which-party-would-you-join-support-poll/633407/78 "2012-09-08T16:09:11Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > The Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognises marriage as a fundamental right. I’m not sure if this predicates state recognition of marriage, but I have no problem with absolutely no recognition of marriage on behalf of the state or states. It’s the discriminatory application of recognition I have a problem with. Fair enough. ---
**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:** [September 8, 2012, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-america-had-a-multiparty-system-which-party-would-you-join-support-poll/633407/79 "2012-09-08T22:49:46Z")
I had not heard of Hans-Herman Hoppe before. Is he some kind of Social Darwinist, who sees total surrender of legal authority to “private” interests as “the natural order”? Meh. Looking at the relevant wiki pages, I suspect I just deny all his majors. ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2012, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-america-had-a-multiparty-system-which-party-would-you-join-support-poll/633407/80 "2012-09-08T23:36:49Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > I had not heard of Hans-Herman Hoppe before. Is he some kind of Social Darwinist, who sees total surrender of legal authority to “private” interests as “the natural order”? As far as I can tell, he’s the sort of anarcho-capitalist that agrees with Loius Brandeis’s statement that “We can either have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.” But then he decides that it’s democracy that’s got to go. The whole thing ends up as a sort of privatized neo-feudalism. Let’s say that I’m not exactly a fan, but I do have to give him some credit for being honest about the sort of dystopia that’s simply the logical conclusion of taking libertarianism all the way. His theory that Keynesian economics is an error caused by the fact that Keynes was a homosexual, and homosexuals have a shorter time preference than heterosexuals is simply bullshit, imho. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-america-had-a-multiparty-system-which-party-would-you-join-support-poll/633407.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-america-had-a-multiparty-system-which-party-would-you-join-support-poll/633407.md?page=5)