Tweet
(photo: krossbow)
This makes sense. Whether are not you share the general ideas with the party in power, if those running the country appear incompetent or corrupt, voters will remove these failures from power. Similarly, if the people in power improve conditions for the voters, the voters will logically assume they are doing something right and will keep them in power.
For example, in American presidential elections, the determining factor isn’t usually the platform of the candidates, but how well the economy grew under the leadership of the incumbent party. This is why during the great recession across many democracies (and even several dictatorships) we saw mostly an anti-incumbent swing, not a worldwide ideological shift.
Sadly, what this means in our two party system is that voters can end up electing a party they don’t like or agree with simply because it’s the only way to unseat the incumbent party. The opposition party doesn’t even need to come up with a more popular platform, they just need to be the only other option. Most perversely in our current system, the opposition party even has political incentive to use their incredible powers as a “minority” to sabotage the economy to hurt the President’s party.
If we had election systems, like proportional representation or even instant runoff voting (IRV), that allowed for more than two viable political parties, this situation would be improved. With more political parties, the electorate could still achieve the main goal of deposing a perceived failure and yet also give voters the choice between several competing visions on how best to fix the problem.
In a better democracy liberals should have a way to remove a failed Democratic Party from power without directly or indirectly endorsing conservatism and conservatives should have way to unseat a failed Republican Party without empowering those promoting liberalism.
It would also lessen party claims to big mandates for their platforms, when really the message from the voters was simply that they wanted the incumbent out of office. This can be a serious issue.
Tonight at 7:00 pm eastern time, Firedoglake is having a members webinar with Krist Novoselic and Rob Richie from Fairvote.org to discuss the problems of the current structure of our election system and the reforms that would fix some of these problems by giving voters greater choice.
17 Comments
please join us tonight
Thank you Jon, this could hardly come at a better time. I just briefly visited fairvote.org and haven’t seen anything yet that is specific to 3rd party, but I will go back and spend more time. Looking forward to this evening.
more parties are simply the byproduct of a fairer election systems.
We will certainly need all the tools that we can muster, so thanks for providing more of them!
A multi-party system and proportional representation would be a good start, but it’s not enough. After all, the anti-incumbency without regards to ideology trend has been seen in this Depression in countries with multiple-party systems as well. We need more direct democracy, including votes upon impeaching political leaders, vetoing bills, and proposing new ones – in combination with strict campaign finance laws and public financing of campaigns.
There are more radical possibilities: we could randomly select citizens to vote upon legislation in special bodies and exclude the rich from certain offices. Both of these suggestions are made in the excellent book “Machiavellian Democracy” by John McCormick.
The post would better have been titled: “Why America Needs a System for More than 1 Party”, because behind all the GOP-Dem kabuki lies a single party controlled by the same fatcat campaign donors.
Sure, a new system would be nice. But it won’t amount to much, as long as the “liberal” infrastructure in America is tied up in what Jane Hamsher calls the “Veal Pen.”
IIRC from my college PolySci 101 class… the purpose of creating a party system featuring a limited number of parties with centralized national party leadership and local branches was to overcome the geographical barriers of governing over such a vast stretch of land. That was back in the day when governing depended on mail by horseback, etc.
I think we’re way beyond that. IMO there are scads of people who essentially have no real representation in government, myself included. The D party does not speak for me and hasn’t for many years now.
The Veal Pen doesn’t speak for you either — an even bigger problem.
One of your best pieces of late.
I think there is a good 1/3 of the nation that feels unaligned with any party and maligned by both.
Well said Jon, thanks. Just last week I said I might vote for a Republican in the next election because if I’m going to get screwed, it might as well be from the other party, not my own.
The two-party system relies upon electoral logic such as this, every two and four years.
To boil it down, voters often vote for the party out of power, not because they embrace their agenda, but because they’re pissed that those in office didn’t carry out their agenda.
This is true, but we should be clear. The bulk of voters consistently vote for one party or the other. When you say that voters turn out the incumbent party whenever things are bad, irrespective of the politics of the opposition party, this really only applies to a small percentage of the voting population. But it just so happens that these people can decide elections.
“. . . it just so happens that these people can decide elections.” —
That’s the problem.
I wouldn’t put all your eggs in one basket. Even if the United States has proportional representation for Congress and IRV for President, it’s not likely that the government would become any more liberal than it is now. While FPTP tends towards a two-party system, getting rid of FPTP won’t change ideologies or voting trends all that much.
The chief difference between FPTP systems and proportional systems is when coalition building happens. With FPTP, it’s the voters who form informal coalitions. You do it every time you vote for the Democratic candidate, even if they might not be as liberal as you’d like. With proportional systems, the coalitions are built formally by the political parties. Liberals would still have to compromise with the center-left and right wing. We won’t get single-payer healthcare, lax immigration, and universal civil rights just because we switch our electoral system.
While it is absolutely a good idea to reform the electoral system, liberals shouldn’t place too much hope in a reformed system giving them a bunch of power. It simply won’t happen. To make a more liberal government, no matter what electoral scheme there is, you need to make a more liberal electorate.