Spinoff of this thread on proportional representation.
What we have now in America is called a "first-past-the-post/winner-take-all" system combined with a "single-member-district" system: The legislature's jurisdictional territory is divided into geographic districts of roughly equal population, and each district elects one representative by majority-or-plurality vote. ("Plurality" meaning you can win the seat with fewer than 50% of the votes cast, so long as you get more votes than any other candidate for the seat.) That's the system we use to elect the House, every state legislature, and most other multimember policymaking bodies. (Some county commissions and city councils are elected "at large," which is less democratic still -- that's another discussion.)
The problem with that electoral system, from any third-partisan's point of view, is that it naturally forces a two-party political system. Consider: Suppose, in your state's next election to the state legislature, 10% of the voters vote Libertarian (or substitute Green, or Socialist, or Constitution Party, whatever, same mechanics apply) -- how many Libertarians get elected? None, because there are not enough Libertarians in any one district to form a plurality. No political party, therefore, can make it save by being a "big tent" party -- which leads to the confusion as to, e.g., just what the GOP stands for these days, when it includes libertarians and paleocons and neocons and theocons and bizcons and those factions don't always see eye-to-eye. That is why America has always had a two-party political system, except when it had a one-party system. There is no room for more than two.
Under a proportional representation system (which most of the world's democracies use, in one form or another -- there are several forms), OTOH, if the Libertarians get 10% of the votes, they get (more or less) 10% of the seats.
If we had proportional representation, it would allow aa multiparty system to develop. I think the emergent lineup in Congress and the state legislatures might look something like this:
Libertarian Party: libertarian -- consistently, on economic and social issues, but probably less radically ideological than it is now; even with PR it would have to moderate somewhat to hope to win even 5-10% of the vote.
Constitution Party: Social-religious conservative and paleoconservative; anti-abortion, pro-school-prayer, etc.; nativist and anti-immigrant; economic-populist -- trade-protectionist, anti-big-biz, anti-Wall-Street, anti-Fed; isolationist/pacifist in foreign/military policy. The paleocon America First Party -- formed by Pat Buchanan's faction when the Reform Party broke up -- is just barely around any more; I suspect it would merge with the Constitution Party. (White Nationalists would find their home in this one -- they are not numerous enough to form a successful party of their own even in a PR system, and this would be the nearest thing to their world-view.)
Republican Party: The remnant after the libertarians and paleocons exit. Pro-big-business-interests; hawkish-neoconservative in foreign/military policy.
Democratic Party: The remnant after the lefties exit, see below. Moderately liberal, meaning neoliberal, trade-globalist -- pro-biz like the Republicans, but moderately pro-welfare-state; liberal-internationalist in foreign/military policy.
Green Party: Environmentalist, decentralist, pacifist, etc.
Working Families Party: Social-democratic/progressive; pro-organized-labor; sympathetic with the Greens, but different from the Greens in their emphasis. (Not a socialist party, but actual socialists -- the sort who want socialism instead of capitalism -- would find their home in this one, not being numerous enough to go it alone even in a PR system.)
I think that covers the whole spectrum of political factions/ideologies currently present among the general population in America -- or at least, the population of people who think about politics at all.
It would certainly make for a more interesting Congress, wouldn't it? Every committee would have representatives from every party in it.
Of course, there would be no majority party in Congress or in any state legislature -- not ever again, probably -- so, no bill would get passed unless two or more parties got behind it. Which is not necessarily a bad thing (especially from a Libertarian POV).
E.g.: Wanna legalize pot? Fine, at least with this system you can get that bill to the floor; the Libertarians will sponsor it and the Greens will (for this one issue, at least) be right with them; but you'll have to craft a case to sell it to a majority.
So: What party would you support? (I'd be Working Families.)
What we have now in America is called a "first-past-the-post/winner-take-all" system combined with a "single-member-district" system: The legislature's jurisdictional territory is divided into geographic districts of roughly equal population, and each district elects one representative by majority-or-plurality vote. ("Plurality" meaning you can win the seat with fewer than 50% of the votes cast, so long as you get more votes than any other candidate for the seat.) That's the system we use to elect the House, every state legislature, and most other multimember policymaking bodies. (Some county commissions and city councils are elected "at large," which is less democratic still -- that's another discussion.)
The problem with that electoral system, from any third-partisan's point of view, is that it naturally forces a two-party political system. Consider: Suppose, in your state's next election to the state legislature, 10% of the voters vote Libertarian (or substitute Green, or Socialist, or Constitution Party, whatever, same mechanics apply) -- how many Libertarians get elected? None, because there are not enough Libertarians in any one district to form a plurality. No political party, therefore, can make it save by being a "big tent" party -- which leads to the confusion as to, e.g., just what the GOP stands for these days, when it includes libertarians and paleocons and neocons and theocons and bizcons and those factions don't always see eye-to-eye. That is why America has always had a two-party political system, except when it had a one-party system. There is no room for more than two.
Under a proportional representation system (which most of the world's democracies use, in one form or another -- there are several forms), OTOH, if the Libertarians get 10% of the votes, they get (more or less) 10% of the seats.
If we had proportional representation, it would allow aa multiparty system to develop. I think the emergent lineup in Congress and the state legislatures might look something like this:
Libertarian Party: libertarian -- consistently, on economic and social issues, but probably less radically ideological than it is now; even with PR it would have to moderate somewhat to hope to win even 5-10% of the vote.
Constitution Party: Social-religious conservative and paleoconservative; anti-abortion, pro-school-prayer, etc.; nativist and anti-immigrant; economic-populist -- trade-protectionist, anti-big-biz, anti-Wall-Street, anti-Fed; isolationist/pacifist in foreign/military policy. The paleocon America First Party -- formed by Pat Buchanan's faction when the Reform Party broke up -- is just barely around any more; I suspect it would merge with the Constitution Party. (White Nationalists would find their home in this one -- they are not numerous enough to form a successful party of their own even in a PR system, and this would be the nearest thing to their world-view.)
Republican Party: The remnant after the libertarians and paleocons exit. Pro-big-business-interests; hawkish-neoconservative in foreign/military policy.
Democratic Party: The remnant after the lefties exit, see below. Moderately liberal, meaning neoliberal, trade-globalist -- pro-biz like the Republicans, but moderately pro-welfare-state; liberal-internationalist in foreign/military policy.
Green Party: Environmentalist, decentralist, pacifist, etc.
Working Families Party: Social-democratic/progressive; pro-organized-labor; sympathetic with the Greens, but different from the Greens in their emphasis. (Not a socialist party, but actual socialists -- the sort who want socialism instead of capitalism -- would find their home in this one, not being numerous enough to go it alone even in a PR system.)
I think that covers the whole spectrum of political factions/ideologies currently present among the general population in America -- or at least, the population of people who think about politics at all.
It would certainly make for a more interesting Congress, wouldn't it? Every committee would have representatives from every party in it.
Of course, there would be no majority party in Congress or in any state legislature -- not ever again, probably -- so, no bill would get passed unless two or more parties got behind it. Which is not necessarily a bad thing (especially from a Libertarian POV).
E.g.: Wanna legalize pot? Fine, at least with this system you can get that bill to the floor; the Libertarians will sponsor it and the Greens will (for this one issue, at least) be right with them; but you'll have to craft a case to sell it to a majority.
So: What party would you support? (I'd be Working Families.)
Last edited:
