If we had a multiparty system in America, which party would you support?

[BrainGlutton]

In this GD thread – http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=269169 – I argued (at great length) that the U.S. would be better off if we had a multiparty system instead of a two-party system. I hypothesized that if we put in place certain pro-multipartisan reforms, such as ballot fusion, proportional representation and instant-runoff voting, that would allow the two-party system to break up along its natural fault lines, something like the following might result:

1. Republican Party (http://www.rnc.org/) – a remnant left after the religious-social conservatives, the libertarians, and the nativistist-isolationist-populists all split off and go their own way. This party would be more purely (and more obviously) the party of established business interests and of agressive foreign-policy neoconservatism. Mostly pro-choice on abortion.

2. America First Party – (http://www.americafirstparty.org/) – Pat Buchanan’s new party. It already exists, but if we moved to PR it might find itself augmented by a mass exodus from the Republican Party. Nativist-isolationist-populist, with a solid base in working-class religious people, especially Roman Catholics like Buchanan himself. Socially conservative, pro-life, against immigration, but also hostile to big business, big government, economic globalization, NAFTA, WTO, and American military adventures abroad. Hostile to the Iraq War, hostile to American support of Israel.

3. Constitution Party – (http://www.constitution-party.net/) – the party of the Religious Right. Already exists, might get bigger. Rooted in Southern Evangelical Protestantism. Agenda would be as it is now – ban abortion, revive school prayer, support vouchers and home schooling, etc. Also would be supportive, for religious reasons, of American support of Israel and military intervention in the Middle East – which would be its main point of difference with America First. Mainly a middle-class and working-class party, which on most economic issues would align with America First, Labor, the Greens and the Progressives – and against the elite-dominated Democrats and Republicans.

4. Libertarian Party – (http://www.lp.org/) – again, already exists, would get bigger. Different from the Republican Party in being pro-market, not pro-business – would deregulate businesses, but also would refuse to bail out foundering corporations or award sweetheart porkbarrel contracts. Also hostile to the national-security state, the military-industrial complex, and foreign military adventuring. Pro-choice, pro-legalizing drugs, anti-welfare-state, anti-big government.

5. Democratic Party – (http://www.democrats.org/) – again, a remnant, after several groupings now under the Dem “big tent” go their own way. This party would represent “neoliberalism,” economic globalization, the politics of Clinton and the Democratic Leadership Council. Socially liberal, internationalist/multilateralist in foreign policy, but inclined to ally with the Republicans on business-related issues.

6. Labor Party – a party rooted in working-class people who are more liberal than the America Firsters, but still pretty socially conservative. Centered on the labor unions and devoted to fighting for working-class interests. Would be pro-choice on abortion but with reservations. Might form around what is now a very small Labor Party (http://www.thelaborparty.org/), founded in 1996, which has never yet run candidates for office.

7. Green Party – (http://www.gp.org/) – environmentalist, tinged with a concern for “social justice” that differs from most models of socialism in being highly decentralist.

8. Progressive Party – a party for all the real “leftists” in American politics, other than the Greens – communists, socialists, social democrats, radical feminists. Similar to the Labor Party, but different in being more socially liberal. (This is what I had in mind in my recent GD thread: “What are the chances for a broad party of American leftists and progressives?” – http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...ad.php?t=267521.)

9. Independence Party – (http://www.mnip.org/) – again, already exists – when the Reform Party split in 2000, its main factions formed America First and Independence. This is the party of John Anderson – and Jesse Ventura, in Minnesota. As with some others, might get bigger if we adopted IRV and PR. It would be “Progressive” in the older, early-20th-century sense of the term – devoted to good government, honest, transparent, vigorous and effective government, but also fiscal responsibility with no deficit spending. Devoted to a technocratic, professional vision of government that purports to transcend ideology, class interests and partisanship – an old Progressive slogan was, “There is no Democratic or Republican way to pave a street.” Would agree with the Libertarians on most social issues.

IMHO is the place for polling, so I would like to ask you: If we had a party system like the one described above, which one would you support, and why?

[Brainiac4]

From those choices, I’d most likely take #5. I am a lifelong Democrat, and the socially liberal but pro-business tack would likely match me best. None of the others sound like a good fit.

[OtakuLoki]

None.

I would continue to vote as I do now, for the candidate I think best for any given position, regardless of their party affiliation. Or, more likely, voting against the incumbent who has betrayed the trust given to him or her.

Though, given your suggestions, it would likely be a cold day in Dis before I’d vote for candidates from parties #2, #3, or #6.

[TitoBenito]

I’d be a Democrat. Too bad the real party isn’t more like that.

[Menocchio]

Wow, from no choices (well, one bad choice, and one REALLY bad choice, and several non-choices) to too many choices. I’d like voting in that world, I think.

It’d hinge on the individual candidate, of course, but assuming all are “ideal” representatives of their party, and seem equally non-corrupt and good leaders, I’d rank them as follows:

8. Progressive Party. I’m not a big socialist, but i am deeply socially liberal and concerned with issues of economic justice. I’d be on their right wing, but I’d be there.

9. Green Party. I may put them first, honestly, whenever they can convince me that they’d champion socially issues as well as the 8’s. They may be more mainstream economically, which I like.

10. Libertarian Party. First do no harm. They won’t address many of the social issues I’d like to see, but they’d try and stop the bleeding. They may be an ineffective government, but they’re the least likely to turn tyrannical.

11. Democratic Party. A compromise choice. Used only for strategic voting in the hopes of blocking a social conservative.

[Ranchoth]

Hmm…assuming it’d actually have a chance at winning anything? I’d probably go with the Independence Party. Democrats as a runner-up.

But frankly, my views are so weirdly varied that I’ll probably end up getting screwed in one way or another, no matter which way I vote. (Same as always.)

Maybe I can start my own party—the “Centrists Extremists” or the “Dorsal Fins.”

[BrainGlutton]

@Ranchoth

Hmm…assuming it’d actually have a chance at winning anything?

Yes, we are assuming a proportional-representation system, where every party almost certainly would get some representation in Congress if it got more than, say, 5% voting support.

[OtakuLoki]

@BrainGlutton

Yes, we are assuming a proportional-representation system, where every party almost certainly would get some representation in Congress if it got more than, say, 5% voting support.

<hijack>

You realize by setting the minimum for representation so high you’re supporting a minimum number of parties, don’t you? Certainly I find it intriguing you’ve set it to the same percentage that NYS uses to allow for a guaranteed ballot slot for a given party, without need of a petition drive: 5%, a number chosen to be sufficiently low to sound attainable, but so high that if only a few parties draw from the major parties, no one but the major parties would have any representation.

If you’re going to offer me a multi-party system, don’t fudge on it. there are 435 seats in the House, so minimum votes for representation should be no more than 1% and even that’s likely too high.

</hijack>

[Happy_Lendervedder]

Gotta go with Labor. Anything that promotes giving a voice to workers is a-otay with me.

[Ephemera]

The Progressives, Democrats, and Greens in pretty much that order. Libertarian too, maybe, but I have no problem with a large government.

[Grrr]

Not trying to be snarky here but didn’t Germany have a multiparty system before Hitler came into power?

Anyway sign me up for the Keg Party

[BrainGlutton]

@OtakuLoki

You realize by setting the minimum for representation so high you’re supporting a minimum number of parties, don’t you? Certainly I find it intriguing you’ve set it to the same percentage that NYS uses to allow for a guaranteed ballot slot for a given party, without need of a petition drive: 5%, a number chosen to be sufficiently low to sound attainable, but so high that if only a few parties draw from the major parties, no one but the major parties would have any representation.

I was basing that on the German system, where you need 5% or more to get into the Bundestag. That cutoff level has frozen out all neo-Nazi parties while sometimes admitting the Greens, sometimes excluding them. Also, my preferred form of PR for the U.S. is a multi-member-district system, with each district electing a ten-member delegation by single-transferable-voting. (This system, which they use in Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_the_Republic_of_Ireland), preserves some connection between representatives and a geographic region – really, how many Americans want to do away with porkbarrelling entirely?) And under that system, no party would get any representation in Congress unless it could get 10% support in at least one district.

But that’s a detail.

For more info on proportional representation, aka full representation systems, see http://www.fairvote.org/.

[BrainGlutton]

Here’s some explanatory material. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation:

Proportional Representation (PR) describes various multi-winner electoral systems which try to ensure that the proportional support gained by different groups is accurately reflected in the election result. Proportional representation is also used to describe this (intended) effect.

In practice this usually involves ensuring that political parties in parliament or legislative assemblies receive a number of seats (approximately) proportional to the percentage of vote they received. This is known as party-list proportional representation. Another kind of electoral system that strives to achieve proportional representation but which does not rely on the existence of political parties is the single transferable vote (STV). Some electoral systems, such as the single non-transferable vote and cumulative voting are sometimes categorized as “semi-proportional”.

Electoral systems that do not result in proportional representation are known as majoritarian systems. These include first-past-the-post (plurality), runoff voting (majority), the alternative vote and the bloc vote. Here, parties can receive seat numbers that bear no relationship to the national percentages they received in parliament. This is called disproportionality, and can be measured with the Gallagher Index (or Least squares), which takes the square root of half the sum of the squares of the difference between percent of vote and percent of seats for each party.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system:

Arguments for and against

The two-party system’s defenders argue that

it produces more stable governance than multiparty systems, because coalition is highly unlikely to occur with two parties dominating.

it keeps ‘undesirable’ extremist parties out of power, like the British National Party (which most Brits perceive to be racist) in the United Kingdom.

uncommon, unconventional ideas and ideologies are non-influential, so policies and governments do not change rapidly; though there is some controversy as to whether this is an advantage. While smaller parties find this exceptionally frustrating, proponents suggest that it enhances stability while allowing for ideas that gain favor to become politically influential.

it gives a more transparent choice to voters: coalitions are created internally before the election rather than externally after it; it is easier to judge whether an elected government has delivered its promises since it cannot blame component parties’ diversity for failure.

the dynamics of a two party system drives both parties’ policies towards the position of a mythical median voter while remaining distinctive enough to motivate their core support.

and even that two party systems, especially those where power often changes hands, are less prone to revolutions, coups, or civil wars.

Against the argument that the two-party system leads to more stable governance, critics of the two-party system argue variously that:

stability is not desirable in itself.

the two-party system produces stable governments, rather than stable democracy, and the latter is what should be desired.

two-party systems are not intrinsically any more stable, citing such examples of stable democracies as Germany, which has a multi-party system through proportional representation.

The two-party system is also criticised for the following flaws:

Candidates are motivated to run negative campaigns, pointing out the flaws in the “other person” (usually the leader of the other party) and staking out only those positions that are necessary to differentiate themselves from their primary opponent and not constructive or beneficial to citizens.

If the opposition party is weak, a dominant-party system may develop.

Debate in the assembly of the country can often be adversarial and not constructive, sometimes revolving around narrowly perceived policy ideas, rather than larger political issues. Sometimes adversarial politics can lead to the opposition disagreeing with everything the government proposes (and vice versa) for the sake of disagreeing. This can lead to important legislation, especially reforms, being blocked that may be beneficial for the country.

The system is more easily corrupted by campaign contributions since there are fewer players to donate to.

In an effort to attract voters, each party will adopt planks of the other party’s platform, leading to the appearance in some skeptics’ minds of a one-party system. Examples include the American notion of a “Republicrat.”

The electoral systems which tend to favour two-party systems (notably the “biggest pile of votes wins” system) are also criticised because:

Most electors are forced to engage in tactical voting, voting for candidates that may not be their first choice.

Smaller parties will be unrepresented: they will not receive a number of seats in the country’s assembly that reflect the number of votes received for them (and therefore the amount of support for them). Some argue that this is undemocratic, as citizens who vote for small parties should be represented fairly.

Smaller parties often represent unconventional or ‘alternative’ (compared to the main parties) ideologies and formulate policy on the basis of this ideology. It can be argued that in a democracy, all ideologies should be fairly represented.

Larger parties will benefit from being overrepresented; some argue this is undemocratic.

[Crafter_Man]

I’m voting for Michael Peroutka (Constitution Party) tomorrow.

[furt]

Depending on the meaning of “vigorous” government, I think I could be okay in the Independance Party.

Libertarian second, Democrat third.

As an intellectual exercise in what makes me progressively squirmier:

4. Labor

5. Republican

6. Green (could drop)

7. America First

8. Constitution

9. Progressive

[Happy_Lendervedder]

@Crafter_Man

I’m voting for Michael Peroutka (Constitution Party) tomorrow.

Alright!

[davenportavenger]

Yes, go Peroutka! Every nut that votes for Peroutka is a nut that can’t vote for Bush.

According to the above definitions, I’d probably join either the Independence Party or the Green Party. (Though I wonder what you mean by “technocratic.”) I’d prefer a decentralized type of liberal/progressive government, not something like the Progressives would probably cook up. But I’d still not vote a straight party ticket; I’d pick and choose from the parties I liked. It would still be a better system than the one we have now, where I either have to throw my vote away in the name of idealism or pick the guy I hate least. It would be nice to have someone on the ballot besides a giant douche and a turd sandwich. It won’t ever happen though.

[Sunspace]

@BrainGlutton

…my preferred form of PR for the U.S. is a multi-member-district system, with each district electing a ten-member delegation by single-transferable-voting.

Interestingly, the Citizen’s Assembly in British Columbia has recommended this system for use in BC. It would be implemented for provincial parliament after approval in a referendum. The article in today’s Globe and Mail mentioned that this was NOT the first choice of politicians because it paid less attention to parties.

Looks like we’ll be seeing more mention of this in Canadian politics soon… which means that you will too.

[Wesley_Clark]

Probably a progressive

[BrainGlutton]

@continuity eror

Yes, go Peroutka! Every nut that votes for Peroutka is a nut that can’t vote for Bush.

Not if we had an instant runoff voting system for single offices! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_runoff_voting:

When the Single Transferable Vote voting system is applied to a single-winner election it is sometimes called Instant-runoff voting (IRV), as it is much like holding a series of runoff elections in which the lowest polling candidate is eliminated in each round until someone recieves majority vote. IRV is often considered independently of multi-winner STV because it is simpler and because it is the most widely advocated electoral reform in the USA.

Instant-runoff voting is also known as Ranked Choice Voting (RCV), a term useful for describing the voter’s experience as well as the appearance of the ballot.

<snip>

Voting

Each voter ranks at least one candidate in order of preference. In most Australian elections, voters are required to rank all candidates. In other elections, votes may be “truncated”, for example if the voter only ranks his first five choices.

Counting the votes
First choices are tallied. If no candidate has the support of a majority of voters, the candidate with the least support is eliminated. A second round of counting takes place, with the votes of supporters of the eliminated candidate now counting for their second choice candidate. After a candidate is eliminated, he or she may not receive any more votes.

This process of counting and eliminating is repeated until one candidate has over half the votes. This is equivalent to continuing until there is only one candidate left. However it is possible, with voter truncation, for the process to continue untill there is only one candidate left, who does not end up with more than half the votes.

@continuity eror

(Though I wonder what you mean by “technocratic.”)

I mean the idea that government problems are technical rather than political (“political” meaning the answer to a given problem depends on ideology, values, or the interests of one class or ethnic group as opposed to another). The early-20th-Century Progressives had a slogan: “There is no Democratic or Republican way to pave a street.” I disagree, personally. Deciding where the streets go and which get paved brings in value judgments.

But the term “technocracy” also refers to any system that places a lot of political power in the hands of purported technical and scientific experts, as Stalin did.

It also means a specific 20th-Century political movement, separate from both Communism and Progressivism. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy:

Technocracy is an organizational system in which decision makers are selected on the basis of technological knowledge, often because of some conflict or competition where technological escalation is a constant feature.

Terminology

The term was coined in 1919 by American engineer W.H. Smith. It came into common usage through management theorist James Burnham’s 1941 work Managerial Revolution. The term became widely used to describe politics and now generally refers to an elite who governs through use of technology/technological prowess. The situation usually described is one in which the elite are selected through bureaucratic processes on the basis of specialized knowledge rather than through democratic or other processes. The term may be either positive or negative.

The general term has been applied to a number of governments, most notably Singapore, Chile under Augusto Pinochet and the Chicago boys, and the current government of the People’s Republic of China.

Howard Scott started the Technocracy movement as the “Technical Alliance” in the winter of 1918-1919. It started as a research organization that recruited scientists, architects and engineers. In 1933 it incorporated in the state of New York as a non-profit, non-political non-sectarian organization. In 1934, Howard Scott, then director-in-chief (his organizational title was “Chief Engineer”), promoted the organization and its goals with a North American lecture tour. The group remains in existence, and still recruits members.

The specific term Technocracy Incorporated applies to a movement started by Howard Scott using ideas from chemist Frederick Soddy and economist Thorstein Veblen. Technocracy Incorporated wanted to use full automation for full production, computers to track consumer demand, and energy credits for money. Technocracy Incorporated is opposed to the price system. The organization was established in 1933. Their magazine The Technocrat is still published today.

Derogatory usage

In current usage, “technocracy” or “technocrat” often have a derogatory meaning. They allude to a form of bureaucracy where decisions are handed down by unelected officials chosen according to their real or supposed technical knowledge, for instance in the economic field. The implications are that:

the decisions lack democratic legitimacy;

the decisions are often inadequate, because they are taken remotely and do not take into account the actual parameters of the situation;

the decisions reflect the ideological biases of the technocrats.

For instance, the European Commission is often criticized as a haven of technocracy.

Criticism of technocracy

One essential criticism of technocracy is that many governmental decisions are not technical, but political in essence. A technical decision is one that may be reached through know-how, expertise and experience, using rational arguments. A political decision is one that reflects some subjective choices, for instance regarding human values, or some choice regarding some very uncertain future.

For instance, a technocrat may follow neoclassical economics and decide that some factory is not economically efficient and thus that it should be closed. Still, closing this factory will result in a local social disaster, with many people forced out of jobs and the usual consequences. A political decision will have to take human distress into account.

Also, technocrats may focus on their particular area of expertise, whereas many governmental decisions have to approach matters from different points of views. An environment technocrat may seek to limit pollutants, while one overseeing industry may seek fewer restrictions on pollutant emissions. The problem is that each technocrat seeks to optimize efficiency in his particular field of expertise. Political arbitration then has to be brought in.

Finally, technocracy lacks popular sovereignty. Democratic governments govern in the name of the people, and the people may influence their decisions. Technocracy in its purest form is a variant on the old theme of oligarchy. Even without the assumption that popular sovereignty is good, technocracy, like all oligarchies, has tendencies to derive into a self-promoting regime that disregards the objectives that it was supposed to seek.

See also http://www.technocracyinc.org/MainIndex.htm.