« Oversight Is Crucial, But Don’t Demoralize Us
Obama Must ‘Dispense with Republican Sensibilities’: Financial Times Deutschland, Germany »
What if we really did have a multiparty democracy?
So I’m reading through the results of today’s local German elections and I’m marveling at the political analysis. Three states – Thuringia, Saarland and Saxony – held local elections and the result was a mixed bag where near-majority Christian Democrats lost to a plethora of minor parties on the left and right including the Free Democrats (economic conservatives), the Left Party (former Communists from the East, trade unionists in the west, and various assorted left-wing populists), Greens and a smaller set of far right National Democrats.
And so I got to thinking: what if we had a true multiparty democracy in the United States? I’m not talking about our current system where third parties get about 1% of the vote. I mean a REAL multi-party democracy instead of the two-party system we have. Obviously this would entail a parliamentary system as well without “winner take all.” In other words, this is pure fantasy. But just for fun, what kinds of political parties would we have? Let’s imagine 2008 thusly, with various representative figures standing in:
Barack Obama: National Democratic Party with 26%
John McCain: American Republican Union with 17%
Al Gore: Green Party with 10%
Roy Moore: Christian America Party with 12%
Michael Moore: Leftist Workers Party with 9%
Strom Thurmond III: Party of Dixie with 6%
Al Sharpton: Black Liberation Party: 2%
Christine Todd Whitman: Main Street Union with 11%
Neal Boortz: American Individuals’ Party with 4%
Susan Sarandon: Peace and Love Party with 3%
Think of the coalition building that would go on! Generally speaking the parties would list to the left or right. But as we’ve seen in Germany of late, you can get coalitions of minor parties across the aisle. Imagine the Christian America Party, the Social Left Party and the Black Liberation Party trying to form a coalition with the National Democrats. Or the Main Street Union joining up with the American Individuals, the Peace and Lovers and the American Republican Union, which lost its Party of Dixie and Christian America backers angry at McCain’s refusal to champion social issues.
The possibilities are endless and fun! Would a true multiparty system more accurately reflect the values of the adherents to the two major coalitions that currently dominate? Would, say, social liberals who currently vote Democratic be less likely to back labor? In other words, would we end up with a more class-based politics? Or would we end up with a LESS class-based politics as cultural issues define the new partisan nexus? And what about foreign policy? Would the left-right divide persist?
What do you think?
opinions powered by SendLove.to
15 Responses to “What if we really did have a multiparty democracy?”
It's a good question. Though watching the numerous parties fighting for critical mass in a place like India doesn't seem that different from the fighting we have within the tents of the major parties. What keeps our two-party system in place?
It would be an interesting way to make lobbying less effective. Right now it's easy for any corp. in America to hedge their bets either way and give the required 5 digit sum to each politician in every race. Until this cancer is cut from American politics, American Democracy will continue to be eroded. Money is not free speech, unless you believe the wealthy deserve more free speech due to their small size in the population.
“What keeps our two-party system in place?”
By no means am I an expert in international politics, but actually the question I have asked myself is the opposite: “How do other countries' political systems sustain many parties”. It seems to me that politics naturally will force competing interests to coalesce into two powerful entities. Even in this post, the natural question that comes from examining the multiplicity of parties is what kinds of coalitions they might form in order to maximize their power. Forming those coalitions is just one step away from unification.
So, if anyone has any ideas on why other countries can sustain multiple parties, despite the natural tendency of political systems to evolve (devolve?) into a two-party system, I'd be interested to hear them. Is it because our politics is more national, whereas maybe in other countries it is more local?
Parties in other countries do form coalitions, but they have trouble keeping them together because of the same centrifugal force over priorities we see here. Different factions within a party can just maybe pull together enough to get elected, but then the progressives denounce the blue dogs, the gays bristle at being last on the agenda, and so on.
But something here keeps them from splintering completely and preserves two as the magic number.
I wonder myself if this two party system of ours is scheme or schematic. Sustained voter confusion through contrivance of perpetual antagonisms for or an attempt to find compromise and balance in controlled tension?
The two-party system is in effect almost totally due to the fact that in Presidential politics every state but two ( and they are tiny states ) are winner take all.
If the electoral college votes were assigned via percentage vote ( pro-rated ) then in California for example, all a minor party would need is about 2% of the vote and they could swing who is President.
Most countries where you have a multi-party system the PM, or chancellor is often selected by the majority party not the people in a direct vote.
All we would need for a third party is a credible proposition initiative in California. If it passed, the rest of the country would basically have to follow, because the Democrats would need to find a way to recover those 22 ( out of 56 ) guaranteed electoral college votes.
There is actually less reason for there to be minor parties in the U.S. Given the size of the budget, the tort system of the U.S., the 10,000's of pages in the Code of Federal Regulations, no group can afford to be out of power. A parlimentary system does not turn the losing parties into prey for the larger parties, The U.S. constitutional system does. No group in the U.S. will be able to afford being out of power for very long. That is why the U.S. will soon be a one party system.
Chromehawk is correct that our unique Constitutional system makes the two-party system all but necessary. That's why I suggested – for pure fantasy purposes – that we imagine what America would look like under a multi-party parliamentary system.
Yes what a great idea. Then gay activists could have there very own party and the rest of us wouldn't have to carry their water for them.
As I've long addressed this subject on this site as well as elsewhere, in other ways, a return to it briefly is merited again here.
You should review the following “progressive” academic site. (Far lefties, whose goals are rejected by the maintstream normally and routinely, have their only chance with proportional representation if in the future we ever can end the Duopoly.) Approval voting for single-seat offices is also superior to the status quo and merits review here as well, once more.
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/prlib.htm
http://bcn.boulder.co.us/government/approvalvot…
What would happen? Consider not only the multi-party intra-governmental behavior there, but also the multi-national “relational” history of Europe — not only its multi-party history, but of relations among the nations (that in no way will vanish despite the “best” hoped-for advances by the Brusselcrats). Foreign policy among and between these nations has frequently involved formal or informal coalitions.
Ignore the “pure” threat of “splinter” groups. This has always been able to be eliminated through the threshold (minimum fraction of the vote needed to secure at least one set in a multi-seat body).
Would the Left provide “entertainment”? Of course, more lurid than any Religious Right conservative party formation. You'd have specific racial and ethnic, and a women's (sexual), parties (deliberate racism, ethnicism, sexism — openly discriminatory) as well as a possible GBLT party and immigrant party (even demanding illegals be included and even hold legislative seats) if lib and Dem special interests were to run unchecked. (These people hypocritically but predictably would shriek if a white party, or men's party, not to mention a Religious Right party or a “nativist” (anti-immigrant) party were formed and opposed them.)
The interesting First Conjecture remains what parties would form, and their sizes (and various levels of support in our non-homogeneous nation), if the Duopoly's termination began with an accompanying partition of the GOP and Democratic Party (which would be affected as well by the Greens and farther-left radicals would do — New Party and such — as well as the tiny Far Right and the paleo-cons).
Later on perhaps other changes to Washington involving the structure and “mechanics” of it could be considered, given that some of these would be facilitated by a converstion to a 4-6+ party system.
A parliamentary system is a more radical revision than merely converting to a multi-party system with (unnecessary but obviously desireable) proportional representation where this is appropriate (i.e., for multi-seat representative bodies).
A parliamentary system, “fusion of powers” (it's time for libs and Dems to insist on this the more the current health care effort falters and “obstructive,” “disruptive” “divided government” may start to be blamed!), Congressional members in the Cabinet and Cabinet officials involved in Congress, changing the structure of the House and the Senate, terms of office, etc., are all separate issues.
“But something here keeps them from splintering completely and preserves two as the magic number.”
The plurality vote (and single-seat offices) is often identified as a cause, though it's also the case that on so many issues, it typically boils down to a dual or binary, Yes or No, position or vote, and it is a common occurrence that many people hold similar positions on several issues, and so a combination of these acceptable to large numbers is an effective way to vote, and this is accompanied by the vote strategy that is defensive that accompanies this system, which is to default to the lesser of two evils, while the party leadership tends to centralize itself relative to the center of the public mainstream in order to poach swing voters or fence-sitters, while retaining most of “their” side, all of this related to the both offensive and defensive appeal of Strength In Numbers.
For better-written or more-creative arguments related to this, the proportional library site I linked to may be of assistance or amusement.
I'd love to see 3 or more political parties, it would bring power away from the wings and back to the center and more in touch with the American people. Right now we don't get to pick and choose policies much, we just get offered 2 packaged deals with good and bad in each, but unable to take the good from both and discard the bad.
You going to see one instead of the idea of seeing three. Of course, if there is only one relevant political party, the U.S. may function as having many parties. If the real elections are inside a primary, then the fiscal conservatives will no longer have to tolerate the social conservatives or the moderates in the Democratic party will no longer have to tolerate the CBC or CHC.
“we just get offered 2 packaged deals with good and bad in each, but unable to take the good from both and discard the bad”
The classic example that author Amy provided in at least the first edition of his book on proportional representation (the edition I own) involves five (5) issues on which people would hold opposing views or positions (Yes-No). Currently you get to choose among two sets of five positions, take them or leave them (all). But you and the rest of the electorate actually have 32 conceivable sets of five positions, and with proportional representation and a multi-party system you'd be more likely to face the set of positions that best matches your own — and have better representation of this, and of you.