Posted on 07/30/2004 12:34:02 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
Immediately following the 2000 election fiasco, there were loud cries to change the electoral process. Hillary Clinton called for an end to the Electoral College. Others called for a system of proportional representation. Some people even called for a parliamentary system of governance. Third-party enthusiasts complained about the uneven playing field and the built-in bias that favors the two major political parties.
As bad as it may be, however, the two-party system, functioning through the winner-take-all Electoral College, is the best mechanism for maintaining a stable federal republic and avoiding the horrors of a splintered democracy.
Italy is an excellent example of why democracy through proportional representation must be avoided. In Italy, where 127 political parties vie for dominance, 57 governments have been in control since World War II. None lasted as long as three years; two lasted only 11 days. Constant turmoil is the inevitable consequence of proportional representation. Tyranny of the majority is the inevitable consequence of a pure democracy.
All political activity falls on one side or the other of a single principle: Government is empowered by the consent of the people. America's founders crafted our system of governance on this principle. Since day one, efforts have been under way to transform America's system into one in which the people are empowered only by the consent of government.
In recent years, the Democrats have aligned their party squarely behind the belief that government empowers people. In a perfect world, the Republican Party should be aligned behind the belief that people empower government. But it is not a perfect world, and the party line separating fundamental political philosophy is quite blurred. A handful of Democrats remain who believe that government power must be limited by the consent of the people. There are many more Republicans who believe that government power is limitless and that the government alone empowers the people.
The dozens of U.S. minority parties, on either side of this philosophical divide, tend to confuse the issue rather than clarify it. The nation would be stronger if the two major political parties were to define their philosophy in relation to this fundamental principle and develop their platforms to be consistent with their philosophy. Minority-party enthusiasts would better serve the nation, and their own interests, were they to align with whichever major party most closely embraces their beliefs and then work diligently to influence the platform and performance of the major party of their choice.
Ralph Nader is philosophically much closer attuned to the Democrat Party than to the Republican Party. Had he chosen to work within the Democrat Party in 2000, rather than to run as a third-party candidate, Al Gore would be president today. Instead, George Bush is president, and both Nader and the Democrats bemoan the Republican agenda, made possible by Nader's action.
On the other side of the aisle, conservatives who have abandoned the Republican Party rather than try to influence it are quite likely to escort John Kerry into the White House, who will quickly reverse the Bush agenda and dash any hope of achieving the objectives conservatives hold dear.
Efforts to build a viable third party on either side of the philosophical divide have been a monumental waste of time and resources. What's worse is the fact that the conviction and passion held by these people has been not been available to influence the direction of the major parties. Consequently, the major parties muddle forward, driven not by principled passion and conviction, but by vote-getting expedience.
People who believe, along with our founders, that government is empowered by the consent of the people, should take control of the Republican Party and ensure that its candidates and its platform proclaim this central principle.
People who believe, along with the socialists, that government empowers people should flock to the Democrat Party and ensure that its candidates and its platform proclaim their beliefs.
While the line between the two major parties may be blurred on this fundamental principle of governance, there is no question about where the two Johns come down. There is some evidence, and much more hope, that the Bush/Cheney option embraces the principle established by our founders.
As the 2004 campaign gets under way for real next week in Boston, listen closely to the rhetoric to see which candidates assume that government has the authority to empower people and which candidates seek the consent of the people to empower government.
We have a multi party system.
What about a draft? A draft would be good. It could be based on either the number of wins from the previous election or the number of offices currently held. No free agents though.
read for later ping
Well, that applies to the way things are now because of the single member, "first past the post" system we have now. If we had proportional representation, things would certainly be different. There wouldn't be as much call to band together behind one of two leaders or platforms, no matter how deficient or unpalatable. You could vote for a party that more closely represented your views, and that party might be able to govern in coalition with others. So his argument that one has to behave in a certain way now isn't an argument against PR.
Lamb may favor the current way because he wants a polarized, right vs. left party system, but proportional systems still recognize ideological conflicts. Where they differ is in allowing for those whose voices aren't heard in a two party system to have a bigger say in the process of government. That's not always a good thing: small parties tied to unions, occupations, economic interests, and ethnic or racial or sectarian groups can really gum up the works with their demands. But one wouldn't have to choose between two unsatisfactory prepackaged sets of issues.
So would PR be a better system? I doubt it. It wouldn't make party machines, deal makers, and big contributors less influential. It wouldn't make government more accountable to the electorate either, just alter the places where the deals are made a little bit. In countries that are really divided ethnically or regionally, like Israel or Italy, PR simply makes the divisions worse: for all the ideological bluster about the two party system, it does make it possible and necessary for people from different regions, classes, and races to cooperate and compromise for what they take to be the common good. And in any case, we won't scrap our own system for light and transient reasons.
But there have been ways of modifying pure proportional representation. One is to introduce a minimum percentage of the vote that parties have to win to be represented. Another is to divide the legislature between single-member winner-take-all district seats and party list proportional representation seats. So it's not as though the result of proportional systems of representation is always chaos.
This is the biggest pile of bulls**t I've seen on these boards. Proportional representation, with a vibrant multi-party system would add new life to the American political scene. Ordinary people would become interested in politics again, because all, or nearly all, would feel they have a party which represents their interests. All we have now is one party with two poorly defined wings, with a horribly bland, muddled message. The US political system has become so sclerotic, change-proof, and beholden to special (i.e. moneyed) interests, that people are tuning out en masse. And some pundits complain that the major networks didn't air much of the Demopublican conventions! They're INFOMERTIALS for heaven's sake; like watching an hour presentation on timeshares or some kitchen gadget. People would flee with their remotes to cable channels and the nets know this. Sorry for the rant, but the left wing of the Demopublican party kept Ralph Nader off the ballot in my state. Oh, the agony.
That's exactly right. Smaller parties would coalesce around the larger party that is most similar to their views. Not only would this naturally form a governing coalition, but it also serves to inject new, radical ideas into a "mainstream" party that was going soft. Such rejuvenation cannot happen in a two-party winner-take-all system such as ours.
BTW--In my last post, I meant INFOMERCIAL, not INFOMERTIAL.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.