All the endless analysis, exit poling data and colorful wall charts expose is just how diverse we really are and why having only two major political parties is a failure to represent that. Governing in a true multi party system would require compromise, working together and building coalitions to from majorities.
So my suggestion is for 20 Senators and 80 congressional reps (10 GOP 10 dems and 40 GOP, 40 dems), to right now say enough is enough, renounce the affiliations with the GOP and the Dems and form a party in the middle to get a start on this. The next is for cites and towns, states and commonwealths to say we will only print one ballot for primaries with all the names on it, we will not keep records for these privately run political parties, only records of who registered to vote because that is the only thing guaranteed in the constitution, the right to vote not the right to vote provided you are affiliated with a privately run political party.
For that is what this presidential race has exposed that we are far more parts than Red Blue, Black White Brown, Women Men, GOP Dems. Time to make elections and our governments actually reflect the complexity of who we all are.
mr-lynne says
… to define the ‘right number’ would be the number at which the most people feel (most of) their views are represented by at least one candidate they can vote for. The trouble is, and I’ve said this elsewhere, I suspect that two parties is a natural and predictable outcome of a system where there is ‘one person one vote’ in a non-parliamentary liberal democratic republic.
<
p>I suspect that in order to have other viable options, you’d need to change the system of representation or the system of voting.
<
p>My 2 cents.
freshayer says
….that many of us do not see ourselves defined so either/or. I don’t believe the founding fathers, who made no mention of political parties in the constitution, were so naive that they expected there would be none but I don’t think they envisioned there being only two, and that was at a time where the diversity we now know (as in who are the candidates left) didn’t exist to the extent it does today.
mr-lynne says
… but what I’m talking about is ‘fallout’ from the system not necessarily ‘design’. My suspicion is that the system they designed tends to result in, either knowingly or not knowingly, two dominant parties. It would be interesting if a computer scientist and a political scientist could create a simulator and just iterate elections. My hypothosis is that you’d see the same type of outcome. The resultant simulated parties might not align on issues the way Rs and Ds do, but I suspect that two would emerge as dominant.
<
p>I seem to remember reading somewhere that Washington actually warned the Congress against forming parties.
freshayer says
….but the subject was discussed. Interesting thought on Computer simulations of demographics to create a hypothetical outcome using actual previous elections demographics. I always liked the President was the most votes and the Vice president the second most votes. Imagine Bush with Al Gore looking over his shoulder instead of Chenny.
mr-lynne says
… but it’d be a VP with no real power looking over your shoulder, wouldn’t it? I mean, other than the incentive of assassination and of the other party impeaching you out of the presidency so their guy could get in.
<
p>… But seriously… “Imagine Bush with Al Gore looking over his shoulder instead of Chenny.”
LOL
tom-m says
Every time a successful, viable 3rd party has arisen, they have absorbed or replaced an existing party. (ie. Whigs, Democratic-Republicans, Anti-Federalists)
<
p>Because of “winner-take-all” legislative districts, the Constitution would have to be completely rewritten for more than two parties to compete on a regular basis. We may get an occasional Bernie Sanders or Jesse Ventura, but ultimately, we will always revert back to the 2-party system unless the very structure of our government is changed.
mr-lynne says
“…unless the very structure of our government is changed.”
<
p>Or the structure of our voting system.
joes says
Congress? That organization where two parties continually struggle for power?
mr-lynne says
mr-lynne says
… with the frustration. I just point out my suspicion is that what is lacking here isn’t diversity or desire for representation. It’s that the problem is systemic and that as such, probably requires systemic redress, not merely ‘call to action’ within the system as is.
peter-porcupine says
..of which McCain was a leader. Neither Clinton nor Obama heeded a call to put the working of governemnt of party. And one of the seven ‘Democrats’ was Joe Lieberman, who Progressives sought to ruthlessly extinguish with Ned Lamont.
<
p>Forgive me for questioning the sincerity of Democrat-BMG on this – aren’t you just looking for another way to extinguish Republicans, rather than elect the unaffiliated?
<
p>And for the record – ANYONE can run as an independent now. If you do, your nomination papers are yellow instead of white – not sure what that says about Mr. Galvin’s take on it….
freshayer says
….that my original inspiration for the proposal was the gang of fourteen. Along with the way Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe were vilified by the Republican Central Committee for even hinting to stray or the all out run by Dems to oust Lincoln Chaffe out of RI, one of the real GOP moderate good guys. In the power demonstrated by the gang of fourteen I saw a wake up call.
<
p>And in answer to…
<
p>
<
p>Some of my best friends are Republicans
<
p>Can’t speak to what the rest of BMG is up to đŸ™‚
peter-porcupine says
bannedbythesentinel says
“When you're a JET you're a JET all the way!”
đŸ˜‰
They were instrumental in putting a softer face on the effort of ramming through an unpopular partisan agenda.
freshayer says
….feels more like the black and blue party.
realitybased says
How about ZERO? As it is, some people think that there is only ONE party here in Massachusetts.
bannedbythesentinel says
That is all there is to say.
syphax says
And let the “my multi-candidate voting system is better than your multi-candidate voting system” flame wars begin…
<
p>But seriously, without a different voting system in place, we’re pretty much stuck with 2 parties.
greg says
I don’t want to start a flame war about voting systems . . . I know how ugly those turn out. I dislike how sectarian those things become — I consider all promoters of alternative voting systems as fellow reformers. Nevertheless, let me just say a few things about Range Voting.
<
p>Imagine a race between Clinton, Obama, and McCain under Range Voting, with 49% for McCain and 25.5% each for Clinton and Obama. How is a Clinton or Obama supporter to vote? Clinton supporters give her a 10, Obama a 9, and McCain 0; Obama supporters give him a 10, Clinton 9, and McCain 0; and McCain supporters give him a 10 and the other two zero; then McCain wins despite the fact that a majority preferred Clinton/Obama to McCain.
<
p>This problem was called the “Burr dilemma” by Professor Jack Nagel. Under Range Voting and Approval Voting, you can’t both express a preference between Clinton/Obama and at the same ensure that one of them wins.
<
p>Under Instant Runoff Voting, either Clinton or Obama would win, as they should given that their supporters are a majority of the vote.
<
p>Some more problems with Range/Approval:
<
p>1. In a two-way race in which a single candidate is preferred by 90% of the voters, the other candidate can still win under Range.
<
p>2. It is not currently used in any public election in the world. So we have very little idea of how it mike turn out in practice.
<
p>3. It is highly susceptible to strategic voting. This is the key reason that voting scholar Nicholas Tideman placed Range among the most unsupportable of voting systems.
<
p>4. Every vote for someone beyond one’s first choice hurts the chances of one’s first choice. Voting systems with that property (Approval and Bucklin voting for example), haven’t lasted long in public elections.
<
p>Every jurisdiction in the world uses either plurality, top-two runoff, or Instant Runoff for single-winner races. Of these, I think we’d both agree that IRV is the best.
syphax says
I’m fairly new to the alternative voting scheme game, so I my opinions are strongly-held enough to start flaming.
<
p>A few thoughts:
<
p>Under the example you give, I would argue that the guy with 49% (let’s call him candidate A, to avoid mixing politics into this) should win. I think you are also presuming that all supporters of candidates B and C (convenient letters, no?) would rank candidate A last, and if current polls are to be believed, that may not hold.
<
p>Your example also presumes asymmetric strategic voting, which I think in practice is unlikely. In my opinion, the strength of range voting is that it would allow a 3rd party candidate to potentially garner enough of the vote to be relevant. It would also prevent fringe 3rd party candidates from negatively impacting the top contenders (you know of whom I speak). How does IRV handle the case of a moderately attractive 3rd party candidate?
<
p>For your numbered points:
<
p>1. I personally don’t have a big problem with this (the majority criterion), but do admit it feels a little wacky.
<
p>2. Does the election of the UN secretary general count? Olympic sporting events?
<
p>3. Experts seem to differ on this one.
<
p>4. If you have a strong first choice, you’ll vote 10 on them and 0 on everyone else anyway. If you are split between two, you can better ensure your #2 will win with range voting, which is arguably a good thing.
<
p>Of course, IRV has some shortcomings as well. It’s failure by Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives is a little wacky, if you ask me.
<
p>Do I favor IRV over plurality? I think so. But I’m not convinced it’s the best of the imperfect alternatives. In particular, how auditable and easy to calculate are the various methods?
greg says
You bring up some good points. I’ll offer a few replies:
<
p>
<
p>Because we have winner-take-all elections and a lack of proportional representation, some have turned to Range Voting, in hopes that really passionate (and perhaps strategic) supporters of a third party could get a third party candidate elecetd. It’s an attempt, I think, to have a minority overrule the whim of the majority. In my view, the solution to a lack of diversity in elected representation isn’t to violate majority rule, but to institute some form of proportional representation.
<
p>
<
p>Actually, third party fringe candidates do negatively impact the top contenders under Range Voting. The entry of Nader into the race will inevitably lead some who would have given the Democrat the top rating to rate the Democrat lower and given Nader the top rating instead. Yes, Nader supporters could theoretically give them both the top rating, but I doubt every Nader supporter will do that in practice.
<
p>Ratings are naturally relative, and the desire to express one’s true preference is too strong. This means we would see a spoiler effect from small third party candidates under Range as well. This is why I don’t think you’ll see Range satisfy IIA in practice. Again, we have very little evidence of how it will work in public elections to know.
<
p>Under IRV, on the other hand, small third party candidates cannot cause a spoiler effect whatsoever. They will be eliminated in an early round, ensuring the winner has a majority of support.
<
p>
<
p>As far as IRV’s failure of IIA, those cases are vanishingly rare in practice. I’ve looked at all the available data from IRV elections in Ireland, Cambridge, Burlington, and San Francisco, and IRV elected the Condorcet winner every single time.
<
p>
<
p>I was using the meaning of “public election” that refers to the election to a public, political office. Range works pretty well when the voters can be expected to act as disinterested judges, as in the Olympics. But when they can be expected to act as advocates and directly impacted by the results, you can expect them to vote highly strategically. Again, we have virtually no data from public, political elections to say whether or not this is the case.
<
p>
<
p>Same here. I’m not 100% convinced IRV’s the best of imperfect alternatives, either. But what I do know is that it solves the most immediate problem facing our elections: the small candidate spoiler effect. IRV allows third parties to begin to participate, and it paves the the way for proportional representation via STV for legislative offices. Electing the right candidate to a single-winner office is small potatoes compared to the ultimate need for some level of proportional representation in the legislature.
greg says
progressiveman says
…do you really think the policy differences between Obama and Clinton jusitfy another party? It seems that if this campaign has proven anything it is that the policy consensus within the Democratic Party is very deep. (which is why the debates center around the nucklehead stuff) The last thing we need in this country are parties formed on the basis of demographics (or regions…we tried that once…lots of people died). It is in fact the beauty of the Democratic party that we have the majority of politically organized women, African Americans, Hispanics, labor voters, Jews, and on and on.
<
p>It means when you have a transformational election, like we do this year, there are going to be growing pains. (From here on out everyone has an equal role in leadership of the party, a long time coming.) It is what the Democratic Party went through in 1924 (103 ballots) and 1928 (the first Catholic nominee) leading to FDR (1932) and the realignment that lasted until 1968. By hanging together and not splintering we have a chance to narrow the time frame to this election cycle.
freshayer says
… where do the growing number of Independents fit not to mention those whose are so disillusioned they don’t even bother to register? (And please do not say join the party and work from within to change it that is a very tired old line) To be honest it is usually the party faithful who get their backs up at any suggestion of making more parties and I would suggest that keeping the status quo would be something Dems and the GOP would both work together on hence my 100 in the middle proposal as a viable path for those party loyalists who get tired of being dragged from the wings to the center each election cycle to form a new party.
centralmassdad says
I’ll tell you why I am an independent.
<
p>It is the tendency, AMPLY evidenced on BMG throughout its existence, of party activists to vilify all opponents.
<
p>We don’t disagree with George Bush. We hate him with the white hot passion of a thousand suns. He is Evil, incarnate and walking the Earth. Also John McCain. And Romney. And Kerry Healy, and maybe Gabrieli to an extent. And Joe Lieberman. And Hillary Clinton. Especially Hillary Clinton. Reoublicans do the same in reverse.
<
p>Ultimately, party activists don’t care about the good of the country, state, or city. They care about the good of their own party, and assume that these are the same thing.
<
p>This sort of crap doesn’t originate with liberals, nor does it originate with Republicans, although they drew first blood in this most recent round.
<
p>For the most part, the perpetual foodfight boils down to Our team rocks and your team sux!
<
p>For this level of discourse, it is better to engage oneself in the epic rivalry between Yankees and Red Sox. At least the arguments are more interesting.
freshayer says
<
p>…….about country state or city but I agree with your basic premises of Party first. It is why I can never take party meetings or gatherings for very long.
lolorb says
makes you think the same problems wouldn’t exist with more parties or even another one where you would feel most comfortable? I’m not dismissing your feelings, because I think everyone feels that way at times. The problem is one must work with reality, and reality is incremental changes over time. That’s what happened to the GOP and what it has now morphed into. Same for the Dem party (and equally not for the better). If the structure is the same, the problems will be the same.
freshayer says
… the candidate of both parties runs to the wings to get the nomination and then runs to the center to win the general. Why not have a party that starts in the center. (The socially progressive, fiscally responsible platform)
lolorb says
your were a Howard Dean fan. Where, exactly, is the middle these days? Would the candidate who most represents that particular middle area be a Joe Lieberman?
freshayer says
….as far as the current race goes. Lincoln Chaffee (yes gone but), Harry Reid, Joe Biden, Chuck Hagel, Bill Richardson, (Bill Clinton???) Jeffords of Vermont, Snowe and Collins of Maine to name a few. Joe Lieberman is to the right of many of these.
<
p>And originally liked Dean but (:as you well know:) am a bit soured on him these days
lolorb says
is your middle ground in this race? The pander to the right wing of the party guy? Fascinating. How exactly does he fit into your ideological middle, independent logic?
peter-porcupine says
lolorb says
Republican, much as I spoke as a true Dem.
freshayer says
…for answering that for me as a true Independent
mr-lynne says
… Off Center. Simply put, the center is underrepresented by GOP design. They have constructed a model of holding on to power where they need not ‘heed the center’. This is how so many things unpopular with the majority of Americans become policy.
<
p>
<
p>I’ll lend it to you if you want.
<
p>I was going to respond to PP above, on this but here is good too. I find the gang of 14 to merely be the exception to the rule. Simply put, that particular crisis was a recipe for disaster if the GOP machine was allowed to continue on its usual course of no compromise and ‘damn the center’. It was the one time in recent decades that genuine GOP moderates were able to steer the party at all. Usually GOP moderates are allowed their dissent with the party as long as the votes are there for the issue in question anyway. Indeed, what usually happens is the take a count, and if there are any votes ‘left over’, they find those GOP members who’s districts are such that they might benefit electorally from voting against party.
<
p>The gang was (is?) unique not because of the rareness (they are not rare, much to the party’s chagrin) of Dems willing to work independent of party wishes… it was rare because GOP members willing to work independently of the GOP leadership were finally able to do so despite the GOP’s wishes.
<
p>I know that sounds partisan and may not sound in the spirit of the post, but the tactics are there. Simply put, it is not the case that both sides are equally culpable here.
freshayer says
…and yet hopeful that a coalition could be formed to rein in the rush to the edge. And thanks for the offer of the read but like many of us my shelves are filled with books I am going to get to soon.
mr-lynne says
… I’ve got 3 or 4 on my “get to them soon” list.
<
p>The point I was making however wasn’t that such coalitions may be desirable to party lock-step behavior. It was to point out that in principal, the systemic mechanisms that had to be overcome for such a coalition to accomplish anything were GOP mechanisms, not Dem mechanisms. It is an important point that Dems are already represent the center than better than the GOP because their leadership style is designed to ignore the center.
<
p>The paradox is that our electoral system is designed to ‘push’ elected officials toward the center, yet the GOP has been able to push very right of center policies through successfully. The book is an analysis by some political scientists as to how they are able to do it.
<
p>The system is supposed to push people to the center. The GOP broke it. In the quest for empowering the center, this is an important fact that shouldn’t be overlooked. I had to laugh at the unity08 movement because when you looked at their issue positions, they were largely in line with the democrat platform.
peter-porcupine says
mr-lynne says
“Usually GOP moderates are allowed their dissent with the party as long as the votes are there for the issue in question anyway.”
<
p>From C&L: Senate Republicans block equal-pay measure
<
p>
peter-porcupine says
greg says
We do need proportional representation of all demographic groups in our federal and state legislatures. By that, I mean if 50% of the electorate wants a liberal representative, 50% should be liberal. If 20% want a black representation, 20% should be black. If 60% want environmentalist, 60% should be environmentalist, and so on for every demographic. That, in my view, is the democratic ideal.
<
p>Proportional representation requires a new voting system, but it doesn’t necessarily require more parties, per se. Virtually every elected official in Cambridge is a Democrat, yet Cambridge achieves proportional representation. Ireland and Malta have proportional representation, yet two dominant parties. Australia, to a lesser extent, is the same.
<
p>Yes, many European countries achieve PR through party-list voting systems that tends to result in numerous parties — almost one party for every demographic group. But PR can be achieved by using the Single Transferable Vote (like Cambridge, Ireland, Australia, Malta, and others), without necessarily having a myriad of parties.
peter-porcupine says
greg says
Yes, if 35% want pro-life, 35% of the elected officials should be pro-life. Etc. What about it is “goofy” and a “fix”. Please explain yourself instead of leaving vague one-liners.
geo999 says
…try doing the math, then check back.
greg says
You should check again, because it’s absolutely possible and happens in practice where PR is in effect. There can be many overlapping constituencies represented. Consider the case where 50% want a liberal and the other 50% want a conservative; and 80% want an environmentalist and 20% want a non-environmentalist. Well, if we’re electing 10 people, that can be achieved by electing:
<
p> 5 liberals who are environmentalists
3 conservatives who are environmentalists
2 conservatives who are non-environmentalists
<
p>That’s how proportional representation works. You have many overlapping demographics represented, all in proportion to who prevalent they are amongst the public.
<
p>Here’s an interactive demo that helps explain it.
skewl-zombie says
only with 35% OF THE VOTE
freshayer says
….so the winner gets at least 50%
lasthorseman says
is on my enemy of the people list for being a fascist pig.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
Just about on equal par with John Yoo, Leo Strauss and the other torture advocates.