Comments on: Political Parties: How Many are Too Many?

By: pabel

pabel — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 20:16:03 +0000

Peter Jackson,

Can you explain that one vote per candidate concept a little more completely? I'm not sure I follow you.

By: peterjackson

peterjackson — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 23:57:24 +0000

The reason there are so many parties in Israel is because their weird voting system is a proportionally representative system. in a proportional system you can suck and still win a share of power. The US system on the other hand awards all power of any particular office to a single winner, and Duverger's Law states that winner-take-all elections for geographical district based offices will generally result in a two party system.

The last thing we need in the US is a proportional system. The two party system is good for many reasons, but mainly because two parties can cooperate at a level that three and four and five and twenty parties could never hope to cooperate. Another important feature is that by denying power to fringe parties, the people are protected from their fringe ideas.

The reason our current system is sick is not due to simply being a two party system, but is due rather to the fact that the same two parties have a lock on the system, impervious to competition. The Dem-Rep duopoly is due in turn to our one man/one vote election system. if voters have only one vote they will almost certainly cast it in favor of the frontrunner or the main challenger. That's how Ron Paul can raise $30 million in campaign funds but still get no votes to speak of when the election takes place.

The obvious reform is approval voting, whereby each voter gets one vote *per candidate* in any election. We'd still have a two party system, but the two majors would be susceptible to up and coming parties whose supporters no longer had to "throw away" their vote to support their desired candidates and policies.

By: pacatrue

pacatrue — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 22:23:02 +0000

There are a couple major difference between parliamentary systems and the U.S. one. (Sorry, I'm pretty clueless on the particulars of Israel's system.) 1) Two parties versus multiple parties; 2) winner-take-all elections versus proportional; and 3) people elect parties not candidates, over all. Each of these is, theoretically, separable. A proportional two party system would be very different than the current one. So would a system in which we could only go to the voters booth to elect Republicans, but not the actual President. (No primaries needed at all!) Each of these might be adopted in the U.S. without the others.

By: superdestroyer

superdestroyer — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 22:16:02 +0000

When the Republican Party has collapsed completely and the Democratic Party is the only party, you will get your wish. Of course, what will probably happen is that few if any districts will be competed because the incumbents will be so powerful. Blacks and Hispanics will gain power because they will always race/ethnicity.

In the one party/no party state, the middle class private sector whites will be adversely impacted. There will be no reason for the incumbents to pay attention to them. Appealing to ethnic groups, public sector employees, retirees will be the essence of politics.

By: Jillmz

Jillmz — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 21:33:23 +0000

Wow – Israel is down to 12? I lived there the year when Peres had to split his leadership because of a coalition gov't – Likud and Labor only 1 seat apart (1984). I'll post my tally sheet from the election sometime.

There's always Italy – don't they have a zillion parties too?

By: pabel

pabel — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 21:29:57 +0000

Paul — I think the key difference in the US is that the interest groups you list cannot elect a slate of candidates who will advocate/bargain for nothing but their singular interests. They can only support candidates with broader platforms. Hence, if we eliminate parties all together, candidates would naturally gravitate to the broadest platform possible, with the exception (perhaps) of geogrpahic issues.

By: PaulSilver

PaulSilver — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 21:16:18 +0000

I wonder if in effect we already have multiple parties that have distinct interests: The Black Caucus, Farm states, Coal States, Corn States, Social Conservatives, GLBT, Environmentalists, Immigrants, Gun Advocates, Free Traders, Reform Groups, Pro Life, Pro Choice, Unions… Don't most candidates already have to maneuver among these interest groups?

By: Economist » Blog Archive » Political Parties: How Many are Too Many?

Economist » Blog Archive » Political Parties: How Many are Too Many? — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 18:52:21 +0000

[...] Wicked Boring wrote an interesting post today on Political Parties: How Many are Too Many?Here’s a quick excerptOne commenter to The Economist article suggested that the better question is: At what vote threshold should a party be allowed to earn a… [...]