Capt. Sawyer has a good post up about political parties. He’s in a familiar bind – neither of the two major political parties represent his views very well and the other political parties, particularly the ones that come closest to his views, aren’t really viable.
And, frankly, his views seem pretty mainstream: pro-environment, pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun rights, and fiscally moderate.
Maybe a “third” party will prove me wrong some day, but I’ve pretty much come to the conclusion that our electoral system is such that the two parties just won’t leave enough political oxygen for a third party to arise. The most practical way for a coalition to get policies they want — or as close as possible — is to participate in one of the political parties and steer it in its preferred direction.
Third parties are as viable as the people who believe in them cause them to be… or more accurately, fail to cause them to be.
I think it’s really a case of pulling the wool over one’s own eyes. Practical coalition outcomes?
Voters continue to play prisoner’s dilemma with voting, whereby they so often vote for the person who threatens them least- thereby assuring that so many things one fears greatly about the party they vote against come to pass slowly rather than immediately; e.g.: supporters of limited government voting Republican and getting bigger government; e.g.: opponents of war voting Democrat and the war continues.
Ds & Rs count on this attitude persisting. They count on third parties being belittled as ‘non-viable’. They belittle thrid parties all the time, but it’s even easier for them when non-partisans carry the water for them.
At the end of the day, it isn’t our electoral system that makes things this way. It’s our electoral attitude.
Going to disagree with Mike Kole (as usual).
Our electoral system has a lot to do with it. Our first-past-the-post election method ensures that a multiparty (>2) system is not stable in the long term.
This certainly does work to the advantage of the two incumbent parties, and I agree with Mike that both of them count on this form of anti-democratic dysfunction.
But I am also faced with the scientific findings of Kenneth Arrow and others who have studied election methods from a rigorous, mathematical perspective. I cannot disregard the empirical data. It’s not all just about attiudes. Wishing and hoping won’t make our pick-one-and-only-one system better. Fervent adherence to the platform of the Libertarian Party, Reform Party, Constitution Party, or Green Party won’t either.
If as many people who have signed a petition to get a candidate on the ballot in the face of our ridiculous ballot-access laws had instead (or also) signed a petition to move us to a preferential voting system, this battle would be won already. The false equilibrium of the two-party system would be a memory.
A tactical vote (i.e., voting for Gore over Nader to “keep” Bush from winning) and a sincere vote need not be in opposition–but they frequently will be with the election method we use. As long as they continue to be, there will continue to be high levels of nose-holding and apathy toward government.
Worse still, the traditional media will continue to be dominated by dipolar (or monopolar–see Fox News) approaches to any given public policy question. The real world is multifaceted and complex, and when all but two viewpoints can be comfortably included, democracy is unenlightened.
I really wish we could get this fixed so we could see how many people truly would vote for, e.g., the Libertarians. The Libertarians themselves are convinced that inside everyone is an anarcho-capitalist struggling to get out–that there’s nothing wrong even in principle with the world being populated by 6 billion wage-slaves…and one quadrillionaire (just so long as he wheeled and dealed his way to the top, instead of doing so under the imprimatur of a “state”).
I think they’re dead wrong, but until serious media attention is paid to third parties, we’ll never know. And that won’t happen until people can vote for them without having to compromise to do so.
Oh well–at least Todd Rokita can be counted on to ensure that every Libertarian’s second choice is secure on the ballot. Where you don’t field a candidate, don’t forget to cross over for the Dan Burtons of Indiana, guys…
Mmm. “included” above should be “excluded” instead.
I agree that 3rd parties only hopes are pushing for ballot reform and not only ballot access. Instant RunOff Voting is a cheap and easy fix to the problem. Third parties should spend their energy influencing local politics, where it’s easier to make a difference. Republicans in Indianapolis appointed Libertarians to partisan boards, to avoid appointing Democrats. I assume Dems could do the same for Greens? There are ways for 3rd parties to influence policy, even if they don’t win the big ticket electoral races. Greens got 11% of the vote for Governor in Illinois. That’s nothing to scoff at.
I think that “third” parties are only “viable” as they transition from third to second status. As one of the primary parties falters, a fringe party rises to fill the electoral vacuum. Doesn’t happen very often, especially so as time goes on. But it has happened, and could happen again. Still, we are then once again left with a two party system with a segment of the electorate marginalized.
I agree with eclecticvibe…the key for new parties is to go after local elections. A green-ish party, for example, could make a go of it in some areas, but would need to avoid socialist style rhetoric, be thoroughly American and totally practical. City and town councils, conservancy districts, even homeowners associations would be the place to start. If a party could control these lowly offices, get useful things done, and keep at it for about ten years, they would begin to gain credibility.
It’s about actually winning elections. A new party should not run candidates in contests where there is no chance of winning, it’s a waste of resources and damages credibility.
I support instant runoff voting.
But, you can look at other countries for examples of winner-take-all voting where there is multiplicity of party.
I still think it’s attitude. As a nation, we believe, errantly and fervantly, that we have a two-party system.
Like vibe says, the run-off would be a good solution. How many people have voted Nader / Perot / etc if they could also say, “but if not my first choice, then this person”. That way a vote is not wasted.
From the math side as Branden was indicating, there is no “perfect” voting system. Each has ways that your prefered vote wouldn’t work out right. However, our current one is about the worst.
I think the one that would be closest to perfect would be not the instant run-off, but the drawn out one. Everyone votes for their person. If no single person has more than 50%, you remove the person with the lowest votes, then re-vote. Repeat until there is a winner. Yes, it takes more time, but it really allows for 3rd (or 10th!) parties and gets a very accurate sample of what the people really want. Until we have something like that, we’re stuck with two parties.
Also, there is no reason we couldn’t do this type of system and keep the E.C. Each state could run-off. Maybe New York gets someone to 50% right away, but Ohio takes a few weeks. It isn’t like there isn’t enough time.
Just a reminder that with instant runnoff voting, there is no waiting. Rather you rank you preferences when you vote. When no contender gets 50% + 1 of the votes, then the lowest vote getter is dropped, and everyone who chose that person then gets their vote counted for their # 2 pick.
Right, but there are statistical ways that your desired vote does not work out.
For example, given a choice between A, B, C and D, you might choose A. However, maybe beween B and C you would choose B, between C and D you would choose C, and between B and D you would choose D. You can’t get the results you would want in an instant run off.
I know the above is unlikely, but it can be used to detract from it. I would take instant over what we have today, without a doubt. You just need to go into the discussion knowing that all instant systems have a statistical flaw in them, even if they’re remote.
I’m suprised at the number of people that use agruements like the one above to explain why we need to stick with our worthless system we have today that protects the 2 parties.
Jason,
Yup–the flaws of IRV are why people need to learn the term “Condorcet”, or, since that sounds vaguely French and therefore undeserving of consideration by True Americans, IRRV (Instant Round-Robin Voting).
I like Condorcet/IRRV methods the best because they seem to suffer the satisfy the most formal election criteria under the most circumstances. Here are some other “favorites” among election method mavens, and why I reject them:
1) IRV fails the Condorcet criterion, which I think is pretty important. In plain language, this means that IRV can select a winner who is NOT the option that the voters prefer to every other candidate on a one-to-one basis. That is, under some circumstances in IRV, if the voters as a whole prefer Adams to each of Buchanan, Cleveland, and Lincoln, a Condorcet/IRRV method will choose Adams as the winner of the election. IRV won’t necessarily.
2) Range Voting: Is similar to Condorcet/IRRV but allows for expression of “strength” of individual preferences in a way that isn’t normalizable. At best, this system reduces to Condorcet/IRRV. At worst I fear it devolves into having some of the properties of Borda Count, which is nearly universally recognized as a deeply flawed system.
3) Approval: This isn’t really a preferential voting method. You just place a check next to every “acceptable” candidate. This is how we elect the school board and city council in Carmel, for example. The problem with Approval voting is ballot truncation. If people truncate their ballot to just one choice, this method has all the same problems as our current method for single-office elections, first-past-the-post.