With both major political parties having significantly net unfavorable rating it is no surprise that Americans desire increased diversity in our political choices. 46% of Americans agree the country needs a third party to compete with the Democrats and Republicans. Given the level of dissatisfaction with the status quo, one might wonder why we are stuck with basically only two choices in our elections. It’s not for a lack of desire for alternative choices, nor is it that our society is inherently an evenly divided country which naturally creates a two-party system. It’s our electoral laws which have evenly divided us.
Our politics are defined by mainly single position election with plurality voting (or first past the post). Whether voting for governor, senator, congress, president, etc., our elections can produce only one winner and the winner is whoever gets a plurality of votes. This inherently discourages political parties that may have significantly less support than the two dominant parties — say 25% of voters. Since they can rarely gain a plurality in any one election they can’t secure many elected positions. In other systems which use proportional representation this is not the case. A party with 25% of the vote would often end up with around 25% of the seats in the legislature.
What this kind of election system produces is a spoiler effect. Picture a single position winner-takes- all election with two legitimate right-leaning candidates and only one left-leaning candidate or vice versa. Even with a very conservative electorate the left-leaning candidate could easily win with a very small plurality. A divide center-right hands victory to united left-leaning choice and a divided center-left will hand victory to a united right-wing choice. Hawaii’s 1st Congressional District special election offers an example of this dynamic at work, where a Republican could win an overwhelmingly Democratic district with just over a third of the vote due to a divided left. Without proportional representation, instant run-off voting, or even very quick run-off elections, voters would constantly run up against the spoiler effect, inhibiting the emergence of new parties.
The current election cycle in the United Kingdom provides an interesting case. The traditional third-party Liberal Democrats are surging because of much unhappiness with the two major parties, Labour and Conservatives. But since they use a similar system of single member districts with plurality winners, the Liberal Democrats could get more votes nationwide than either the Labour or Conservative parties but still end up with few seats in parliament than both.
Compounding our American challenge, we have a national election for the presidency. Without this particular election in its current format, we could see the emergence of regional parties (for example Bloc Quebecois in Canada), or third parties that compete in the few districts which are much more conservative/liberal than average. But having a national presidential election produces the spoiler effect nationwide. We are driven further into a two-party paradigm since third parties could not run viable president candidates; in our system the president is generally viewed as a leader of their respective political party.
The U.S. is not an inherently divided country split between two ideologies. Nor do American voters actually want a two-party system; they don’t believe this offers a sufficient set of choices. This dichotomy is a result of our election system’s structure and will not change until our election laws are changed. It also means that we are doomed to experience zero sum political campaigns and policy fights, because the system prevents the emergence of third parties that could equally punish Republicans and Democrats when they both behave in a way that disappoints the electorate.
Instead the two parties will continue to see value in trying to tear each other down. In a two-party zero sum political system it does not matter how far you lower your own standing as long as you bring the other party down even farther. If Americans want more choices and less zero sum politics they will need to push for changes to election laws which make this possible.



40 Comments
Americans desire increased diversity in our political choices.
What, the choice between Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber isn’t good enough?
In England the third party is surging and causing anticipatory headaches to power brokers like Rupert Murdoch who assumed that anti-incumbency would favor the Tories. Instead, one pundit (who is himself pro-Blairite and thus not thinking wishfully) suggests that
Break out the
popcorncrumpets time?I think the founding fathers went awry when they moved us away from the Parliamentary system. Our current system, as we can see, does not lend itself to additional parties. And given the fact that the SCOTUS has further advanced the corporate take-over of our government, we serfs, err, voters, are now home and hosed. It’s a done deal.
As we saw with the last POTUS election: what matters is what our corporate overlords want. They ran BHO as a bait and switch candidate. Our votes counted for nothing. Unlike the 2000 and 2004 elections where Dem votes were blocked by rightwing voting “machines” from Diebold and such, in 2008 Dem votes were counted. But hey: witness what we got! An empty suit Republic pretending to be a Dem. Fools some of the voters, but certainly not all of us, esp those here at FDL.
That said, we’ll never ever see a Parliamentary system here, so we can but try to encourage and vote for third party candidates. The Greens right now are the most viable and have run successful candidates at local and state levels.
I would have to say that we don’t have political parties, we have one large crime family that just changes it’s face occasionally. It serves no one but itself.
We are witnessing the denouement of another chapter in human history, a very exciting time to be alive. We are all brother and sister yet we do what we do. It boggles the mind that no one sees what we could be vs. what we are.
we got both kinds of political parties here in the USA:
the party of business interests
and
the business interest party
At the same time, if they manage to win enough seats in Parliament to keep either party from having a majority, they will be able to gain concessions from one party or the other to form a coalition. That’s an important point to keep in mind when discussing power – sometimes a minority can have it, if they can choose to give that power to one group or another.
This is a very important place to focus our efforts. As long as the barriers to getting on ballots are so high, as long as there is no instant run off there is very little chance of having a truly accountable Congress.
Until we have an electoral system that requires a run off, if no one candidate gets 50% +1, I see no hope for additional parties to break the choosing between two corporate owned evils. I think it is fair to say that “none of the above” would win, hands down, in any election, for any office in this country at the moment.
Of course it will take a revolution of some sort for a change in the electoral system and that is not likely to happen any time soon despite the dour prognostications of Chomsky.
France has a presidency but also multiple parties because it does not have first over the post single member districts.
Only 46 percent want a third party? That’s a low number. CNN found the number was 64.,
“Sixty-four percent of all Americans say they like the idea of a third party that would run against the Democrats and Republicans.”
http://themoderatevoice.com/63311/cnn-poll-americans-want-third-party-and-tea-bag-candidates-would-hurt-republicans/
Ah, but we do have a two party system: there is the Inner Party (who no one sees) and there is Outer Party (our current politicians and media). And beyond that you find us proles.
Proportional representation is one solution. Give some seats in legislative bodies to parties that achieve some vote percentage threshold. This requires changes to the relevant level Constitutions (State, US). At a municipal level it might be do-able via statute or ordnance.
Various forms of Instant Runoff Voting (ballot counting) is another. This allows third party votes to not create spoilers – if your vote for Nader didn’t result in his victory then your second choice of Gore would be counted. IRV can be implemented via statutes.
Improved access for third party candidates is also important. I had a friend on facebook inquire yesterday about how to get on the ballot for state assembly in Indiana – same seat I ran for in ’94 and ’98 as an independent. Ballot access still requires petition signatures equal to 2% of vote for Secretary of State within the district – for Monroe County Indiana this means 656 signatures in 2010 – the district in question is somewhat smaller than the whole county, but some signatures will be challenged so 650 signatures are likely a minimum anyway.
Indiana ballot access is a bit more difficult as filing deadlines are earlier. So it is no longer possible to gather signatures at July 4th celebrations.
How were the questions posed, what was the wording, what were the questions before and after, how was the poll introduced?
I’d be very happy with Instant Runoff Voting. I can’t see another solution without changing the form of government.
Solutions that require Constitutional changes will never happen.
That is my thinking about instant run off voting. It is not a first choice solution so much as it is simple the easiest improvement to achieve.
Never isn’t quite correct. Certainly it won’t happen quickly, amending constitutions is meant to be difficult.
Proportional representation could happen in lower levels of government and slowly spread if they are perceived as being better.
So a few towns in Wisconsin start using PR. As people see better policy coming from more diverse representation they start working to get PR in the state legislature… 20-30 years later the constitution is amended to have the lower house seated via PR. Rinse and repeat in other states.
Yes, and there are so many other points of focus.
NOTA should be an option.
ALL primaries should be TRULY open and free of restriction; if you’re registered to vote, you vote; and you vote for anybody on the ballot in all races, representing any party, no requirement to pick one party and vote it. The primary system as now run, even in many states with “open” primaries, only further consolidates the power of the increasingly less discernable two major parties. If they want to do that, let them run – and pay for – their own damned primaries, without the help of government- (read: taxpayer-) funded resources like voting booths and boards of election. And let them call them what they should have been calling them all along: Electoral Conventions.
Finance of campaigns is another issue that impinges on political choice.
Oregon does something very empowering to individuals – it gives a tax credit for political contributions. This takes the control of publicly financed campaigns out of a bureaucracy and places it with individuals.
If Mary Oregonian gives $50 to a light rail expansion funding measure’s campaign she gets $50 back when she files her Oregon tax return. Joe Oregonian can give $50 to a Oregon candidate running on a crypto-fascist (white supremacy) platform, he gets his tax credit too.
As long as the money is going to someone or some measure that is on the ballot the tax credit is available. I believe the limits are $100 per year in credits.
I’ve seen other schemes for public finance – typically raise a threshold amount from a large pool of donors and receive public funds. This isn’t quite as empowering of individuals (and may in fact eliminate public finance for both Mary and Joe’s respective contributions).
There have been over a hundred “third parties” over the years. If they had been viable, they would have remained and maybe even thrived.
But for some reason the Vegetarian Party (1948–1964) and others didn’t take hold with a majority of people in the US.
The divide isn’t as much right / left as it is between the Corporatist of both parties and the Populists of both parties or as David Cay Johnson calls them the “Peoplists” of both parties. The Corporatist serve Mammon not “we the people” and the Peoplists want Gov’t to serve the interests of all the people not the top 2%.
You have to admit that the Vegetarian Party lacks a certain amount of excitement.
good questions, to which I don’t have answers. I do know that it’s common for this basic notion, however it’s put, to get majority support.
Splitter!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4Z_b-06BDk&feature=PlayList&p=24FD67C17E543664&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=2
The list of “third parties” today is pretty long. Unless someone has the resources of Ross Perot, starting another is just adding to that list.
How about the Progressive Party of 1912?
Though fully versed on the futility of third parties, I still think a “Prosecution Party” might catch on.
This would be a party devoted to investigating and prosecuting culprits in all areas of society–government, corporations, churches, and with special attention to Wall Street. The Prosecutuion Party would leave matters of public policy aside until things are cleaned up.
Barack Obama is a Neocon
Fixing this problem only requires a Constitutional Convention. If we Americans can manage this feat, we should also have the ability to put the patricians in their place. After all, their efforts the last time did not work out too well at all.
Aren’t both numbers higher than the percentage of people who vote?
A federal constitutional convention seems likely to result in unintended consequences (secession could be legal via a constitutional convention, some would seek it and the resulting struggles would be ugly).
Futurama had a great example of the political system with the episode “A Head in the Polls”.
The clones (James Johnson & John Jameson?) were running for the presidency of the world.
Nixon’s head won with a robot body by one vote.
The two paries in charge will never change the laws as Jon suggests. Why should they give away their own power?
What is required is a third party that has a platform which can gather the necessary votes under the current system.
Now, here’s the hard news. Any such party will have to be CENTRIST in nature. Because that’s where the numbers are. Activists on both left and right will have to become willing to sacrifice some of their pet issues, in sober recognition that those issues are really FRINGE issues.
For myself, I could happily live under a truly centrist government. Aristotle urged “moderation in all things,” and that has always been my guiding principle in life. It seems to me that a centrist govt would be infinitely preferable to a by, for and of the corporations govt, which is what we have now.
How do the rest of you Firepups feel about that idea? I have sought repeatedly to get Jane to comment on this idea, but so far she has chosen not to. What do you guys think?
I agree with you that holding a Constitutional Convention might and probably would produce unintended consequences and some of these consequences might be undesirable.
Yet, this assertion is also true when applied to the ‘standing pat option’ — that is, to refusing to hold a Convention in order to fix the festering problems the last Convention gifted to posterity. I would go so far as to assert that standing pat should not be considered a viable long-term solution to the crisis of the moment. As of today, Americans are insecure in their liberty, well-being and democracy. Reforms are needed, but neither party appears able or willing to enact these necessary reforms. Americans will need a large and powerful pro-reform movement, a bit of wise constitutional engineering and more than a bit of luck will to resolve many of the problems which vex the country today. A politics of this sort should not be considered conducive to bringing political and social stability in the short-term. Instability, to my mind, is America’s fate. Americans, I believe, ought to embrace their fate by treating it as an opportunity.
Ballot issues are a symptom, not a cause. If we had a system that didn’t have spoilers, then there wouldn’t be a need to set up ballot laws to avoid them.
See http://leastevil.blogspot.com/2009/12/laws-limiting-third-parties-are-cause.html for more on that.
In regards to IRV, it also doesn’t solve the problem. It solves 2.5 man spoilers (Small third parties shifting the balance between the two big parties) but not the full 3 candidate spoilers (Where the third party actually stands a chance of winning). Also, look at Australia. The lower house uses IRV, and only elects two parties. The upper house is PR, so the other parties get represented there.
http://scorevoting.net/NoIrv.html
Also, one problem with PR (aside from difficulty in getting it implemented) is that it takes away from accountability. Plus, although we have a metric (Bayesian regret) for measuring single winner methods (with Score voting being the winner), there isn’t one for PR. The best known ones are either Reweighted score voting, or asset voting, both of which can be found on the scorevoting.net website.
To quote Bill Maher:
Frankly, I couldn’t see anything more fitting!
A lucid explanation, but what solutions exist to reform of our 2-party non-representative status quo…???
There’s a primary election coming up in California. The only choices are Corporate Republicans and Corporate Democrats. I don’t vote for corporate parties any more. I won’t be going to the polls.
Then vote for Laura Wells or Pete Schurman
Staying home is not an option. I know in many cases its the lesser of two evils but at least Brown can be moved by populism.
We can elect anybody we want, it just takes money and desire.
TO THE MOD: Why is my Comment #32 still awaiting your approval? What is up with you guys recently? I haven’t written anything remotely objectionable, yet you’ve been treating me like I’m a terrorist. I’m really starting to wonder about your values, as I see the comments you’ve allowed to stand. Could I get an explanation, please?
~~~LurkingModNote: my bad. Your comment is in the clear.~~~
Thank you. Could I be taken off the watchlist entirely? It’s been almost two months now. Makes me feel unwelcome each and every time.