Suppose we had a multiparty system?

[pecksniff]

The prospect frightens a lot of people because they see it as empowering extremists. But what a proportional representation system does is make the elected representatives more exactly represent the range of political views of the voters -- and a lot of people are centrists.

So, here's a possible scenario: We introduce proportional representation, which causes the two-party system to break down, and ultimately sort itself out into a (more or less) three-party system: The Commie Pinko Lefty Hippie Tree-Hugging Pot-Puffing Moonbat Party; and the Pig-Ignorant Troglodyte Bigoted Greedhead Right-Wingnut Party; and the Wishy-Washy Squishy-Spined Centrist Moderate Mugwump Party. (And, those will the the official names.)

In that system, the Mugwumps (formed out of the centrist remnants of the present Dems and Pubs) rule. Because the Wingnuts and the Moonbats can never agree on anything, no bill can ever pass Congress without the Mugwump vote. It would be stabilizing, while allowing everybody across the spectrum to get a fair say in the highest halls of power.

 

[CornusKousa]

The prospect frightens a lot of people because they see it as empowering extremists. But what a proportional representation system does is make the elected representatives more exactly represent the range of political views of the voters -- and a lot of people are centrists.

It sounds a lot like just getting rid of the Senate and breaking down the two major parties into a number of parties.

Why not just move to Europe??

Be a lot easier than getting 2/3 of the country to re-write the Constitution in order to imitate a train wreck.

So, here's a possible scenario: We introduce proportional representation, which causes the two-party system to break down, and ultimately sort itself out into a (more or less) three-party system: The Commie Pinko Lefty Hippie Tree-Hugging Pot-Puffing Moonbat Party; and the Pig-Ignorant Troglodyte Bigoted Greedhead Right-Wingnut Party; and the Wishy-Washy Squishy-Spined Centrist Moderate Mugwump Party. (And, those will the the official names.)

Sure. Going to be a lot of infighting with the hippies and the commies though.

In that system, the Mugwumps (formed out of the centrist remnants of the present Dems and Pubs) rule. Because the Wingnuts and the Moonbats can never agree on anything, no bill can ever pass Congress without the Mugwump vote. It would be stabilizing, while allowing everybody across the spectrum to get a fair say in the highest halls of power.

Could be....but like I said, good luck with that one!!

 

[pecksniff]

Why not just move to Europe??

A lot of Euro countries make the mistake of combining a PR system with a parliamentary system -- they can't "form a government" until a majority coalition is assembled, which causes instability if no party has a majority on its own. The problem does not arise in a separation-of-powers system like ours.

 

[pecksniff]

And then, of course, the Greens and the Libertarians would be off to the side somewhere -- just like now, except they'd have a few members in every legislature.

 

[ll74]

Move to a parliamentarian country. The US political system always drives to two.

 

[pecksniff]

Consider that no matter what is your pet fringe-issue -- legalizing pot, ending the Fed, confiscating all privately owned firearms, mandating universal possession of firearms -- a PR system offers a better chance of it being at least seriously discussed in Congress or wherever. No guarantee it would be enacted.

 

[pecksniff]

Move to a parliamentarian country. The US political system always drives to two.

That is not because of the difference between parliamentary and separation of powers systems; it is because the mechanics of the single-member-district first-past-the-post system of representation tend naturally to produce a two-party system. If in the next election of your state legislature, 20% of the voters decide to vote Green -- or substitute Libertarian, Socialist, whatever's your fave third party -- how many Greens get elected? None, because there are not enough Green voters in any one district to make up a majority or plurality. The purpose of PR is to make sure that in such situation, the Greens get 20% of the seats.

 

[pecksniff]

Those "Never Trump" Republicans now talking about starting a third party -- they'd end up with the Mugwumps.

 

[ll74]

That is not because of the difference between parliamentary and separation of powers systems; it is because the mechanics of the single-member-district first-past-the-post system of representation tend naturally to produce a two-party system. If in the next election of your state legislature, 20% of the voters decide to vote Green -- or substitute Libertarian, Socialist, whatever's your fave third party -- how many Greens get elected? None, because there are not enough Green voters in any one district to make up a majority or plurality. The purpose of PR is to make sure that in such situation, the Greens get 20% of the seats.

You just keep telling yourself that

 

[pecksniff]

For more on this, see FairVote -- an organization originally founded as CPR, "Citizens for Proportional Representation" -- but even they appear now to despair of that possibility, and now focus on other reforms such as ranked-choice voting.

 

[vastiesmith100]

Then the left wins

We need to get the lifers out of Gov, and we need to beat bidden and his liberals in 2022 or it's over.

 

[pecksniff]

We need to get the lifers out of Gov, and we need to beat bidden and his liberals in 2022 or it's over.

Why does the left win? The balance of public opinion wouldn't change under a PR system, only the electoral results would sort out in a different way. Some white-nationalist party might even have a chance of winning a few seats.

As for the lifers, I'm all for a mandatory retirement age of 70 for all federal officials, including judges and members of Congress. (Not the presidency, because that would require a constitutional amendment. But a congressional retirement age could be a matter of house rules, not even requiring legislation as such.)

 

[Rightguide]

A lot of Euro countries make the mistake of combining a PR system with a parliamentary system -- they can't "form a government" until a majority coalition is assembled, which causes instability if no party has a majority on its own. The problem does not arise in a separation-of-powers system like ours.

Nothing wrong with how our government is formed. It's design and foundational law is unique in human existence, and in the World. It's the reason why we lead the free world and dominate the planet.

PS: Somebody hand Pecksniff that bottle of pink stuff, thanks.

 

[pecksniff]

Nothing wrong with how our government is formed. It's design and foundational law is unique in human existence, and in the World.

No, it isn't -- many other republics have copied it.

Presidential systems.

Parliamentary systems.

It's odd how those now seem the only two viable models -- in the French Revolution, they experimented with all kinds of things.

But, all this has nothing to do with first-past-the-post single-member-district vs. proportional representation. The FFs did not consider PR because it had not been invented at the time, and they were essentially copying the British system anyway in that regard.

 

[Rightguide]

No, it isn't -- many other republics have copied it.

Presidential systems.

Parliamentary systems.

It's odd how those now seem the only two viable models -- in the French Revolution, they experimented with all kinds of things.

But, all this has nothing to do with first-past-the-post single-member-district vs. proportional representation. The FFs did not consider PR because it had not been invented at the time, and they were essentially copying the British system anyway in that regard.

My meaning was at the time of our founding. Yes many have copied it, why? Because it is so great. Others have adopted their own dumb systems.

 

[pecksniff]

My meaning was at the time of our founding. Yes many have copied it, why? Because it is so great. Others have adopted their own dumb systems.

None of that is any argument against PR, or any other reform that might promote a multiparty system.

Of course the FFs never thought about that -- what we call party politics scarcely existed in their time, even in Britain. But it's obvious by now that you really can't have a republic without parties. The early 20th Century Progressives were rather naive on that point.

 

[Rightguide]

None of that is any argument against PR, or any other reform that might promote a multiparty system.

Of course the FFs never thought about that -- what we call party politics scarcely existed in their time, even in Britain. But it's obvious by now that you really can't have a republic without parties. The early 20th Century Progressives were rather naive on that point.

The parliamentary system is inferior to our system in my view.

 

[colddiesel]

Israel has proportional Representation. It ensures that a tiny group of religious conservatives dictate the balance of power every single time. Germany has proportional representation too but if you get less than 5% of the total vote you get nothing. So Germany always has coalitions of the major parties.

UK and USA have first past the post winners and their legislatures work fairly well, but only when the two sides act with a modicum of good will. That goodwill has been totally absent in the USA and significantly absent in the UK for the last 10 years at least.

The unique feature of American government is not the Constitution, there are many which are broadly similar. The unique feature in the USA is money, it is levels of magnitude greater in importance than anywhere else .

 

[pecksniff]

The unique feature of American government is not the Constitution, there are many which are broadly similar. The unique feature in the USA is money, it is levels of magnitude greater in importance than anywhere else .

Well, that's a whole different problem.

 

[Cubantripod]

The prospect frightens a lot of people because they see it as empowering extremists.

The parties are being run by extremists. Every election a candidate has to appeal to extremes of their party to win the nomination. A third party would almost certainly be a much more centrist party and the duopoly knows that they are toast if there is a third party.

 

[pecksniff]

The parties are being run by extremists. Every election a candidate has to appeal to extremes of their party to win the nomination. A third party would almost certainly be a much more centrist party and the duopoly knows that they are toast if there is a third party.

Well, see the OP -- in that event, the centrist party holds the balance of power.

 

[CornusKousa]

Well, see the OP -- in that event, the centrist party holds the balance of power.

Well, see REALITY.... that's not how it works out in the real world.



Get your blinders on and start ignoring facts Peck!!!

 

[pecksniff]

Well, see REALITY.... that's not how it works out in the real world.



Get your blinders on and start ignoring facts Peck!!!

You're going by parliamentary systems -- not a problem here, as previously explained.

And you're obviously dissatisfied with your two-party duopoly options -- start thinking about a third party you could get behind.

 

[CornusKousa]

You're going by parliamentary systems -- not a problem here, as previously explained.

Nope, I'm going by the fact that they don't work well.

Certainly not against keeping despotic lunatics from coming to power.

And you're obviously dissatisfied with your two-party duopoly options -- start thinking about a third party you could get behind.

I am??

No.

 

[pecksniff]

I am??

No.

You hate the Dems, the Pubs aren't "liberal" enough for you, and you can't be having with the Libertarians -- time to organize your own.