Tweet
If you want to understand why America is stuck with a broken two party system, look at France, which also has a presidential system but still manages to have multiple competing parties.
The first round of the French Presidential election will take place in a few days — April 22nd. Currently the polling for this first round is extremely close. Despite the fact that the incumbent, Nicolas Sarkozy, is deeply unpopular, he and Francois Hollande are neck and neck in polling for the first round, with several other candidates all polling in the low double digits. There is also Marine Le Pen, who is to the right of Sarkozy, and Jean-Luc Melenchon, who is to the left of Hollande.
A recent Opinion Way poll found Sarkozy at 28%, Hollande 27%, Le Pen 16%, Melenchon 13%, Francois Bayrou 10%. On the other hand, a recent TNS poll found Hollande 28%, Sarkozy 26%, Melenchon 16%, Le Pen 16%, Bayrou 9%.
Even though the vast majority of French don’t want Sarkozy to serve another term, there is no agreement on who should replace him. As a result this divided field means there is a real possibility Sarkozy could pull off a narrow plurality on April 22nd.
If France used the American election system for president this would mean a very unpopular incumbent could win another term. Afterwards there would be much finger pointing about how Melenchon was a “spoiler” that cost Hollande the election. There would have been real pressure on Melenchon not to run so the left could offer a united front in the election.
Under the French election rules though, if the unpopular Sarkozy wins a small first round plurality because of a divided field, that isn’t the end of the story. On May 6th the two candidates that did the best in the first round complete in a run-off election. The polls show that when the unpopular Sarkozy is faced with a single candidate, he should be easily crushed. Opinion Way has Hollande leading 54% to Sarkozy 46% in a possible match up. Similarly TNS has Hollande winning 56%-44%.
Because France uses a run off system, multiple parties can run candidates without the fear that a divided field will inherently favor even any unpopular incumbent. There’s less worry that simply having more parties running on one side of the political spectrum will inherently cost them the election.
France doesn’t have multiple viable political parties simply because the French people have greater diversity of views, any more than most Americans are simply super happy with just two parties. France has more parties because they have election laws that allow for a diversity of choices to have a chance of winning. In contrast, in America the Democrats and Republicans have worked together to write our election laws to try to prevent any other political parties from competing against them.
32 Comments
Well, that was the case … until the Greens got on the ballot. :-)
I don’t know if we’ll win, but 80 years ago, in the 1930s; and 160 years ago, in the 1850s; third parties have altered American politics for the better, and (naturally) to the left. Seems like it’s about time for another shift. :-)
It costs our elites a lot less to buy two parties than to buy many parties.
Since last century election rules have been restricted to reduce parties. It used to be you can have fusion tickets and cross endorse in most state. Now it is no longer allowed in most states.
Something else I believe is important are “primaries” and what not. States are on the hook for the two parties nominating processes. It can cost millions. And
There is NO REASON states should have to pay a dime for party primaries.
We the tax payers should not have to subsidize the two parties. Let them pay themselves or move to caucuses or something.
Anyone my point was that I dont think the States have budgets to finance multiple parties.
If people here actually had to pay dues to the demotards or rethuglicans we would see their “memberships” more or less cease to exist.
Did France tweak its laws a touch since Jospin went down in flames and the French were forced in a runoff to choose between right-winger Chirac and out-and-out Nazi Jean (Marine’s dad) Le Pen? The talk at the time was that because the French Left had blown something like 40% of the vote on a dozen-odd different small parties, all the while expecting Jospin to win, enough of Jospin’s base went to those small parties to cause him to run third behind Le Pen and Chirac.
Yeah, and lets end nominating conventions, too. What a colossal waste of money for a propaganda party.
I do not understand the attraction of multiple parties. It seems that all we would do is diminish the influence of the progressive legislators. We already have the progressive caucus – which is not all that influential. By splitting them off into a third or fourth party, why would they have more power? Do we expect the right to split up as well as us?
No matter what, it is better to have a progressive group plus some dems that represent more conservative states. Why would it be so good to have those more middle dems be off on theri own? Would they ever cover our back?
why would they have more power?
It would force “moderate” Democrats to caucus with peeps who represent actual progressives. CPC has no balls, which is why they have so little power.
back in the day politics was also issue oriented. You might have a slate for Abolition or the gold standard etc. Probably the closest thing today is anti abortion but thats just rolled in the the repubs. And with virtual seats for life the House has stopped reflecting the zeitgiest anyway. Most of my life I have had only 3 congress people. Lol. All 3 are serving too but they just move the districts every few years. No chance of ever electing anyone who is for Legaliztion for a couple of years or maybe someone focused on energy. We are stuck with the same people until they retire or have a major scandal.
I don’t buy the “Republicans have written” line. The majority party in states wrote the state laws to favor the majority party in how electoral votes were allocated. In the US, the President isn’t running in one national elections but in 50 state elections. If the electoral college still functioned as the founders imagined, the President would be running in 435 district elections. That would provide more opportunities if third party candidates had geographic strongholds.
It is the use of the House of Representatives to decide runoffs that makes the US system different.
It’s not the presence of third and more parties in the electoral system that is important. It’s the ability of those parties to win sufficiently to affect policy. In the US, the Socialists did that in the 1920s and 1930s. But they had strong candidates to rally around.
Most European parliamentary democracies have an additional step toward forming a government — the formation of ruling and opposition coalitions. Before the ideological purging of the 1960s, US parties functioned as coalitions (Democrats still do to a great extent).
The French don’t have MLB, the NFL, NHL, NBA, NCAA, et plus.
Multiple parties allow swing voters more range of choices, which can more precisely align the legislative body with the will of the people.
That doesn’t compute. Moderate dems already caucus with progressives. I don’t see how that becomes the impetus for a more progressive agenda for the congress if the moderate dems and the progressives are split into competing parties.
Swing voters can then vote for more partisanship?? I still do not see how four points of view creates a better legislative body than a congress with two positions.
especially a congress with four points of view that are contradicoery and nnone of which commands a majority.
So, the French have any number of candidates THEY don’t like and most don’t want 4 more years of the status quo?????
Nice to share this pathetic conundrum with somebody.
I guess misery DOES love company….at least in my case.
your assumption is that the Dems represent us. I stopped being a dem years ago. The only reason most of them get my vote, and I am sure millions of others, is because they are not republicans.
also it would effect more “conservatives” too. My area is a permanent dem seat – there is really no point in us even voting really – but the repubs finish 3rd behind the libs.
So with more parties, there would still be “the right” but they wouldnt be beholden to Grover Norquist, Cantor or Mitch Mcconnel.
Currently anyone who might want to run for office has to pick either side. Dem or Repub. Most of the primaries are just dog and pony shows with the candidates picked by the party brass anyway.
With a viable multi party system, people could run as they pleased with out having to play by with the stacked deck. So a libertarian might actually run as one instead of being forced to into the repub fold.
But my feeling is that parties are an anachronism anyway. Probably here in the US, more people would run as INDEPENDENTS than affiliate themselves with any one pary
If the CPC was beholden to a party committed to progressive ideals rather than one controlled by corporate interests, so-called moderate D’s would have to form a coalition government with progressives in order to have a majority to control the Congress. So, while progressives would still be a minority, they would be a much more powerful minority. By caucus I meant that the two entities would have to work together toward common goals. Clearly, CPC does not really advocate for progressives now.
However many major political parties we have one of them needs to represent the progressive philosphy of Government. The whigs declined and the Democratic Republicans emerged. I believe the Democrats have declined and hopefully something like the Green party will emerge as a dominant second party to the R’s. We are at a tipping point with this next election cycle. OWS will empower people IMO to try something new. I will vote the green Party ticket in Nov. Previously I railed against people who voted Nader or P & F but it seems our only hope is a new party that can reflect majority opinion and policy not just the current plutocracy.
The R’s are the party of the rich and always have been so they are doing their job but the D’s are now the party of the rich, Truman wouldn’t know this party at all.
a good point…
when people here vote in Nov… what exactly are they voting FOR? What is it the Dems claim they are gonna do? Whats in it for us? Universal health care? legalization? They have that platform that is more or less meaningless.
About all I can figure is on the Dem slate is simply “we arent living in the 16th century” which isnt really enough to base a party on.
And another side effect of our current system is capitulation. we will never get rid of a republican senator because the state party doesnt actually bother with the election. They wont waste money or time on it and seem like they just run whoever is willing to fill the slot that year. So even though he isnt that popular, the choice A or choice B mechanic ensures another 6 years just because he is a republican.
Agree that we need to try new strategies for growing progressive power. The last 40 years have been disasterous for us.
NASCAR…..you forgot NASCAR!
Especially this millennium.
I eat shit. But hey the delegates at the Democratic National Convention can visit the nearby NASCAR Hall Of Fame.
I think the Democratic Party is too co-opted to be salvageable.
The only input from regular American citizens to Democratic party leaders will come from the winner of the “Win a date with Obama” contest on his fundraising website. Cool if David or Jane or Kevin won that. O would get indigestion for sure from that dinner.
I agree. In fact, I believe the purpose of the D Party is to attract progressive energy and redirect it toward corporate friendly governance. That’s a polite way of saying it.
We have other parties.
What the problem that non legacy parties face is a complete lack of willingness for the corporate media and their “progressive” media allies to cover them. That is changing, ever so slowly.
I speak from experience. It will take actual progressives who are willing to challenge this and support those of us who are out there.
Michael Cavlan RN
Candidate US Senate 2012
Minnesota Open Progressives
Where are rich progressives who could afford a msm outlet and speak the truth? Nowhere. Our “arab spring” will be when the people stop watching or caring what wolf et al are saying. Hope you win in MN. They have progressives in your state.
Absolutely.
I will be voting for Jill Stein for president. It will be a conscience vote, in personal certainty that I have voted for the most qualified (perhaps the ONLY qualified) candidate. I will then go home content in my action.
I really enjoy and appreciate the superior writings of the contributors in this site. But there is so much teeth gnashing in the commentaries, calling Obama every kind of asshole, and then offering NOTHING instead.
Am I missing something or are there really only these assumptions to draw:
–some really do not have anything intelligent to offer instead, usually including myself,
–many plan on staying home election day to stamp their feet and pout,
–some think Obama will be so fearful of their disfavor that he will change his mind, character, and personality to something else, (yeah, that’s mature),
–many, if not most, PREFER conflicted oppositional government rather than coalition government,(yeah, that’s working great),or
–believe in mandates from God like “Thou shalt have two and only two political parties” and will make up any rationale or apply any historical events that remotely relate to keep it that way
Agreed. In fact we are depending on it.
As a candidate for the US Senate I have stated repeatedly
A media which refuses to inform the public of all the facts have proven themselves to be the enemy of an informed public. That makes them the enemies of democracy itself.
I look forward to how the corporate media and their buddies in the corporate corrupted political establishment will react when we at the very least, have a good strong showing. Or better yet when we WINN!!!!!!!!!
That is not very responsive to what tomallen said. He basically said that despite election laws that discourage alternatives to the Democrats and Republicans, the Greens have been on a significant number of states’ ballots. That fact counters what appears to be the point of this post – Americans are screwed because our electoral system sucks.
I am a big fan of your work generally, but it’s hard for me to see how this post is any better than the myriad pieces that slam third party candidates as “spoilers” with the intent to discourage people from even considering voting for third parties. The “spoiler” pieces force home the point that alternatives ruin the election and lead to the least desirable candidate, even though actual elections tend to show that the opposite happens, which is devious. But so is claiming that we have no options when, as others commenters pointed out, we obviously do.
There have been alternatives superior to the major party candidates in every presidential election in which I could vote. There will be again in 2012. If people do not vote for real change, they should blame themselves and not the election laws. Bad as they are, people’s laziness and narrow-mindedness when it comes to politics are worse and the real problem.
Aitch D’s sports analogy means American society demands a Manichaean clear cut winner and loser. It will take too long for a true People’s Party to snuff out the Zombified Dems.
So why not a Democratic Party reboot? Start with a page from Grover Norquist. Demand the People’s Pledge: sign up to pledge a no vote for any legislation that raises Medicare to 67 and SS to 70.
Quite simply, any candidate, especially Democratic incumbents, who doesn’t sign will not get our vote, our $$$, our time and can expect to be Primaried.
Simple. “hey has Wasserman Shultz signed the People’s Pledge? No? Okay, who is running against her in the Primary who has signed and how can I help save the DEMOCRATIC programs under attack “