We have a "winner take all" system in our politics, as opposed to a system of proportional representation, so we end up with what amounts to a "two party" system of government. There are really only two "major" parties, and the multiple "minor" parties, or "third" parties, are highly unlikely ever to achieve the ability to govern.
In fact, though, even where there is a system of proportional representation, I tend to think that politics, at bottom, is a kind of "two party" affair.
There is the "we" party. And there is the "me" party.
In our political life, we can either elevate the power of individuals to act individually, and to be free of any requirement to the larger community (this is the "me" party position, ably represented today by the Republicans).
The other approach is to emphasize our interconnectedness, and to sanction taxes and impositions on individuals, to achieve what the elected representatives determine is the greater social, or community good. The "we" party position is not so ably represented, nowadays, by the Democrats.
I think the failure of the "we" party is the reason so many people decide not to mark their ballots at all. Unless you are individually wealthy (and so can truly take care of your basic needs and desires on an individual basis) you are, perforce, of the "we" party. That should be the majority. It should carry the day!
Hi, I blogged about your blog-post here.
ReplyDeleteI think that the way forward to a more robust two party dominated democracy is the use of more multi-seated elections in "more local" elections and the use of more two-stage elections for "less local" or executive elections. This is like what we historically had in the US until the sixties. Californians need to either have the sort of changes advocated by the New America Foundation via a peaceful "revolution" or strategically vote in the "top two primary" elections to get a better mix of election rules.
dlw
Well, nations with proportional representation do tend to follow under two coalitions (though there's exceptions like the Netherlands), they're fairly different in nature than our top two parties (Which exclude in almost every jurisdiction than Vermont participation by other parties through uncompetitive and anti democratic behavior). In particular coalition parties can fluctuate, and it's easier for voters to "kick out the bums" and get a new mix later on, like what happened with Ireland. It tends to make politics more dynamic, and allows for more meaningful dissent in government. I think one of the main problems with our political system is really lack of accountability of the two major parties by likewise minor parties. For example, just imagine this. If we had a thriving Green Party (or otherwise left wing party), a thriving Libertarian Party (or otherwise right wing party), in addition to our Republicans and Democrats, both of these other parties would help to keep eachother in line, with the more left leaning Greens and more right leaning Libertarians providing checks on their respective parties. A lot of people balk at third parties because they can't win "big" or govern on their own. But to be influential, you don't have to win "big", but simply win enough to deny the major parties a plurality. A good case of this was the Green Party in Saarland, while winning only 3 seats, was able to muscle the two ruling conservative parties into a load of concessions, in exchange for a mandate to govern. I think third party activists need to realize this too, and quit with futile gubernatorial and presidential runs, and try out a coalition tactic*.
ReplyDelete*=I realize there are many viable tactics out there, and encourage a thousand flowers to bloom :)
I truly appreciate the comments from dlw and TiradeFiction. I think that dlw's comment in his own blog, A New Kind of Third Party, may be the first time that my blog has been referenced in another one. I'll return the favor! I actually do not disagree with dlw, and think, as both dlw and TiradeFiction say, that different electoral arrangements could help stimulate more and better democratic participation and more democratic outcomes in election contests. I particularly do not disagree that "power corrupts," and I think both the "we party" and the "me party" need to trade power and position, and that this alternation between the "parties" is both an outcome and a requirement of a healthy democracy. We are neither "just" individuals, nor are we "just" members of the greater community. We are both, simultaneously, and that means there is a reason for each of the two "parties" that I see as driving the democratic debate and discussion, conflict and controversy, that should lead, in a democratic system, to decisions about what to do. Decisions that can and will be changed, as power shifts to reflect changed conditions, and changed desires.
ReplyDeleteNo problem Mr. Patton, happy to help and give my 2 cents :)
ReplyDeleteI hope my comment was constructive.
VERY constructive, I thought, and thanks again!! Like that screen name!
ReplyDeleteTFaction is something else, isn't she?
ReplyDeleteI'm glad she's my co-blogger.
dlw
Thank you very much Mr. DLW for the kind words :D
ReplyDeleteIts really a good read for me...
ReplyDeleteI like you way of thinking about it
It's nice to see that a long-ago blog posting still has some resonance. Thank you, KBPI - and I see you know what "Happy Birthday" really requires!
ReplyDeleteThe above was a spammer in case you didn't know (the link..well...)
ReplyDeleteThanks, TF! I didn't know that but I probably should have guessed!
ReplyDelete