Posted on 03/22/2020 10:34:40 AM PDT by Kaslin
This month, the state of Israel held its 3rd election in less than a year due to a handful of small parties failing to form a majority coalition. Meanwhile, in the U.S., pundits hysterically argue that a two-party political system divides and furthers polarization. In reality, the American system avoids much of the more extreme polarization and division often seen in other systems around the world.
Like Israel, many European countries use some form of a proportional election system that almost always results in many different small parties entering parliament. Israel has 6 parties in parliament — a lot of them receiving less than 8% in the last election. The same goes for much of Europe: Italy and Spain have more than a dozen parties in each legislature, many with nothing more than a single seat.
On the other side of the Atlantic, critics claim the two-party political system has failed Americans. One Foreign Policy opinion writer makes the case for letting "a thousand parties bloom" to end the political divide in the U.S. Like many others, he essentially argues that Republicans and Democrats only compete in swing districts and therefore these parties just appeal to a small number of swing voters.
But that argument misses a crucial point: Under the American system, each candidate needs broad public support in the district to receive a majority or at least a plurality of the vote. Without that, he would not be able to compete, whether it's a swing district or not.
In a proportional system, parties appeal to a much smaller segment of the population. Those minor parties can gain a substantial number of seats in parliament even though they may have never won a majority of the votes in any district. So it’s not unusual for many lawmakers to hold positions not supported by even a single constituency in the whole country. Doesn’t that sound more polarizing?
In Germany, every party with more than 5% of the national popular vote gets a seat at the table. Many other European countries have an even lower threshold. Of course, this elevates marginal and sometimes extreme parties. In fact, those minor parties often get outsized power in European-style proportional parliamentary systems due to their ability to play an important role in forming government coalitions. In those coalitions, they can effectively dictate policies on certain key issues, even though they mostly haven't received more than 10% of the national vote.
In Israel, the reason there have been 3 elections in less than a year is the dispute between the former coalition partners of the large conservative Likud party of Prime Minister Netanyahu and the smaller right-wing Yisrael Beiteinu of former Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman. Lieberman's party has been widely seen as a kingmaker and the staunch opposition to his conscription demands by several religious parties in the Likud-led coalition has led to the two snap elections.
Party leaders, not voters, become kingmakers under the proportional system. This is also true for selecting the candidates themselves. There are different systems in use throughout Europe, but generally, party leaders play the principal role in deciding which candidates are nominated on their party list. There is nothing comparable to an American-style primary election.
The dominance of parties also influences political debate. In a system with many parties, voters are much more expected to agree with their party’s leadership stance — as there are more parties they can choose — even if they don't represent their every position.
Under a two-party system, there is much more room for a lively debate inside the party. This isn't to say there is no debate in European-style parties — there is — but it is not a public debate. For the sake of party unity, too often these debates are done behind closed doors and decided not by the base but by party officials.
The two-party system allows for a large and diverse range of opinions in each party. After all, America isn't divided on major political issues because both parties disagree, but because large swaths of the population do. These major parties don't represent tiny segments of the population with sometimes radical views, which is often the case in proportional systems. Rather they represent an America that is shaped by different regions with their distinct broadly-accepted values.
The answer to polarization in the U.S. is simple: Local self-government and federalism — ideas deeply rooted in the American republic.
But what if the other party has morphed into a bunch of self destructive children?
The socialist dems have been pretending for too long
Faultsies is a deep state liberal moron who should up.
I like our system much better.
1. It compels the two parties to be more moderate. They need to get a majority so they can’t be too radical.
2. It forces the voters to make a choice between the visions of one or the other party, knowing that they will get one or the other. Whereas in a multi party system you have no clue what you’re going to get.
3. Additionally in our system, the legislature and executive are not necessarily of the same party, (separation of power) thus putting a break on runaway government. In a parliamentary system they are guaranteed to be of the same party, thus they can ram the party’s agenda at breakneck speed.
The parties in the United States have not been nearly as important as the Media.
The Media has been uniformly controlled by those in the Progressive ideology, which gained ascendancy about 1963 after being built up since about 1900.
For example, in the 1932 election, both Hoover and Roosevelt were Progressives, although from different parties.
America cannot handle a system beyond two parties let alone three presidential candidates. It is always destructive to the founding of the republic.
Not so much lately.
These major parties don't represent tiny segments of the population with sometimes radical views, which is often the case in proportional systems.
The two major parties aren't tiny, but they are more polarized than major parties in other countries. Many countries have a mixed system. Some representatives are chosen by district on a winner take all basis. Others are chose proportionally from the lists the national parties provide. So it's not a matter of choosing between a purely proportional system and what we have now.
Israel is an exception in so far as it has a purely proportional system and a low 3.25% threshold for receiving a seat in the Knesset, its legislature (there is also no upper house). Other countries with mixed systems and higher thresholds don't have such problems. Minor parties in a governing coalition in those countries can get their way on a few limited issues, but the countries aren't suffering much for it.
Rather they represent an America that is shaped by different regions with their distinct broadly-accepted values.
A system with big parties that represent different regions with opposing values is not necessarily better than a system in which small parties represent smaller constituencies, which can combine with each other as they see fit. The traditional defense of the two party system was that it reduced polarization and produced moderate outcomes. That really isn't the case any more. True, the outcome is usually a stalemate, but the divisiveness and animosity grows and grows.
America has a one party system with delusions that it is two.
In defense of democratic elections in the USA:
Every major election for state and Federal office, there are 3rd and 4th parties onn the ballot. The overwhelming majority of voters, the democratic amajority vote for the two party system and oppose 3d and 4th parties.
I know becausee I have worked door-to-door for the fringe parties and know that the overwhelming democratic majority (In Illinois at least) favors the two party system to dominate.
Lennie Brenner, after the Johnson administration, wrote a book titled “The Democrat Party, The Lesser Evil.” His thesis was that the DIMMs did not campaign on the idea that their ideas were better than the GOP; rather, vote for us, we DIMMs are not as bad as the Republicans.
He was interviewed on a local talk show. As much as I can remember after 30+ years.
Caller: But the DIMMs are for the poor guy.
Brenner: With the DIMMs in charge, the poor are one nickel richer; with the GOP they are one nickel poorer.
C: But we have two parties.
B: Yeah! The two get elected, get together in DC, and say, “Let’s have a party.”
Brenner strongly argued that there was, effectively, only one party made up of DIMMs and RINOs and the voters were getting taken for a ride. As we look about we realize that some conspiracy theories do have some observable evidence supporting them.
Truth in packaging: Brenner is very, very leftist. His book catalogs the hypocrisy from Jackson to LBJ. An interesting read.
GOP bump
Proportional representation would be an unmitigated disaster in the US and a boon to the left. The far left wants it.
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.