Is a two party system making America ungovernable?

[dandelion]

This is not simply a US argument - the UK has a two party system too for exactly the same reason. For the benefit of non UK people who might not know, there is shortly to be a referendum in the UK whether to switch to Av voting (i think thats the official name). Instead of just marking one candidate you rank them 1,2,3,4 etc for however many you want. On the first round the one with the least votes is knocked out and their votes transferred to the voters next preference... until someone has 50% or more.

Personally, the first time I met this system I wondered why on earth it was not used in national elections. It is not full proportional elections, but it counters one of the big objections to a fully proportional system, that people do not end up with a local candidate responsible for your area. It can sometimes be a good thing if an election is decided on local issue and you get someone who will fight for that.

The reason it is not used is obvious. In the UK the next prime minister will be chosen by a few thousand or few hundred thousand people who pick the leader of whichever party wins the next election. (voting systems vary but it is just party members who will choose). no one stands a chance of being part of a government unless he joins one of the two pruvate members clubs which run this country. There are a few other private clubs which might be able to get you into parliament but as a private citizen you have no chance. In theory if I got 50,000 people to support me I ought to be entitled to a seat in parliament. Maybe I become known for some issue and I could get 1,000,000 people to support me nationally. But would I get a seat in parliament? nope. Now if i joined one of those clubs and agreed to follow their line, they would supply 30,000 people to support me and I would be in.

 

[parr]

parr meant rampant, not rampid, because rampid isn't a word. He just isn't educated enough to know that, or to know how it's pronounced so he could sound out the spelling.

Without changing the current voting system to one in which third party votes would be effective, voting for a third party is futile.

Thank you Petite, I stand corrected.

 

[phillyhangin]

It’s not a need to change the voting system. It’s a need for the third parties to have the acknowledgment, the public support, and financing that the two major parties have.

Even if third parties had the same resources as the dominant parties, that doesn't change the fact that under the current system only one candidate can win - the one with the most votes. What tends to happen is that people on the left (myself included) vote for third party candidates who are more in line with their political goals but those votes typically come at the expense of the Democratic candidate, so the Republican candidate gets elected even though most people did not vote for him or her; he or she simply had the highest number of votes. (Many people were hoping that the Tea Party would undermine Republican candidates this time around, but that didn't happen since Tea Party-supported candidates ran as Republicans.) Under proportional representation, all three (or more) parties would win seats in proportion to their share of the votes.

Note: This only applies to winning seats in Congress (or to a state legislature); offices such as President or Governor would still operate on a winner-takes-all system because there is only one vacant position to be filled.

 

[petite]

It has nothing to do with money. Our voting system is severely flawed when you try to introduce more than two parties. It's called "vote splitting" and it weakens the voting power of the people. Additional parties that siphon off votes from the major party on the same side of the political spectrum, weakening the voting power of those people.

It's not that hard to understand. Let's suppose that Acute and Obtuse are two political parties on the same side of the political spectrum, one we'll call Triangle. The opposite end of the political spectrum is called Circle. Let's suppose that 60% of all of the people are Triangle and 40% are Circle, but the Triangle vote is split since 30% are extremists in the Obtuse party and 30% are moderates in the Acute party. Even though an overall minority support the political beliefs of the Circles, just 40%, since the Circles haven't split their votes up into different parties, the Circles will win. The Triangles would have been better off having ONE party and combining their Acute and Obtuse votes, which would have given them more political power. Then the results would more accurately reflect the interests of the citizenry, since 60% are Triangles.

That's not very democratic because those third party voting results failed to reflect the political interests of the overall majority, and it's the reason why introducing third parties weakens the voting power of those who choose to vote for a third party candidate. Our system only works with two parties.

The answer to the problem is to change to another voting system where third party votes would wield actual voting power for the political beliefs that vote represents, and would yield results that reflect the political interests of the citizenry.

 

[phillyhangin]

Without changing the current voting system to one in which third party votes would be effective, voting for a third party is futile.

^^^What she said.

 

[phillyhangin]

It has nothing to do with money. Our voting system is severely flawed when you try to introduce more than two parties. It's called "vote splitting" and it weakens the voting power of the people. Additional parties that siphon off votes from the major party on the same side of the political spectrum, weakening the voting power of those people.

It's not that hard to understand. Let's suppose that Acute and Obtuse are two political parties on the same side of the political spectrum, one we'll call Triangle. The opposite end of the political spectrum is called Circle. Let's suppose that 60% of all of the people are Triangle and 40% are Circle, but the Triangle vote is split since 30% are extremists in the Obtuse party and 30% are moderates in the Acute party. Even though an overall minority support the political beliefs of the Circles, just 40%, since the Circles haven't split their votes up into different parties, the Circles will win. The Triangles would have been better off having ONE party and combining their Acute and Obtuse votes, which would have given them more political power. Then the results would more accurately reflect the interests of the citizenry, since 60% are Triangles.

That's not very democratic because those third party voting results failed to reflect the political interests of the overall majority, and it's the reason why introducing third parties weakens the voting power of those who choose to vote for a third party candidate. Our system only works with two parties.

The answer to the problem is to change to another voting system where third party votes would wield actual voting power for the political beliefs that vote represents, and would yield results that reflect the political interests of the citizenry.

I was just about to post a similar example in response to another post, but it looks like you beat me to it (and did a better job!). :biggrin1: There have been many election cycles where I would have preferred to have voted for a third-party candidate, but the risks of splitting the vote were too great, so I ended up having to vote for a candidate with whom I did not agree on some points so as to avoid unintentionally electing a candidate with whom I did not agree at all.

I definitely think that proportional voting would benefit Americans - and the UK, too, Dandelion; it's a matter of finding the right system of voting since there are a number to choose from. All of the systems have their strengths and weaknesses; some are more appropriate for electing single candidates whereas others are better for electing large groups, such as legislatures. The best approach would probably be to have one system for single offices and another for the group elections, although that might be a bit confusing at first.

 

[Vagus]

The two party system isn't very democratic. People are just voting for who they think is the lesser of the two evils, they don't vote for the Party they really want. With the two parties so powerful, they can pretty much screw the public over as much as they want and still stay in power. More than 2 parties means the Party has to hold up to it's promises or not get elected again. Do you really think that over-simplistic example of the dynamics of voting behaviour would wash in a Political Science class?

It has nothing to do with money. Our voting system is severely flawed when you try to introduce more than two parties. It's called "vote splitting" and it weakens the voting power of the people. Additional parties that siphon off votes from the major party on the same side of the political spectrum, weakening the voting power of those people.

 

[petite]

Do you really think that over-simplistic example of the dynamics of voting behaviour would wash in a Political Science class?

Yes, it does. The book I referenced before is used in college courses. Just because a concept can be explained using an easy to understand example, doesn't make it untrue.

I believe that America ought to have many different political parties and it would be a vast improvement over the current system, but I understand what's actually preventing that from happening, and the problem isn't money or the fault of the voting public for actually understanding how our system functions. We need to make it possible for third party votes to have more power. I don't understand your hostility towards that concept. As someone who clearly wants third parties to have more power, I would think you would be greatly interested in learning how other voting systems would give third parties more power in our government. Instead you attack my intelligence?

 

[Bbucko]

It has nothing to do with money. Our voting system is severely flawed when you try to introduce more than two parties. It's called "vote splitting" and it weakens the voting power of the people. Additional parties that siphon off votes from the major party on the same side of the political spectrum, weakening the voting power of those people.

It's not that hard to understand. Let's suppose that Acute and Obtuse are two political parties on the same side of the political spectrum, one we'll call Triangle. The opposite end of the political spectrum is called Circle. Let's suppose that 60% of all of the people are Triangle and 40% are Circle, but the Triangle vote is split since 30% are extremists in the Obtuse party and 30% are moderates in the Acute party. Even though an overall minority support the political beliefs of the Circles, just 40%, since the Circles haven't split their votes up into different parties, the Circles will win. The Triangles would have been better off having ONE party and combining their Acute and Obtuse votes, which would have given them more political power. Then the results would more accurately reflect the interests of the citizenry, since 60% are Triangles.

That's not very democratic because those third party voting results failed to reflect the political interests of the overall majority, and it's the reason why introducing third parties weakens the voting power of those who choose to vote for a third party candidate. Our system only works with two parties.

The answer to the problem is to change to another voting system where third party votes would wield actual voting power for the political beliefs that vote represents, and would yield results that reflect the political interests of the citizenry.

Spoiler candidacies were a factor in 1992 (Perot) and 2000 (Nader); people can forget that Clinton won '92 with 43% of the popular vote. At the time, it was considered scandalous. The election in 2000 was less clear-cut (had Gore carried his "home" state of TN he'd have won), but undoubtedly Nader played a significant factor in GWBush's election.

I'm not actually certain that a Parliamentary system (more like France's or Italy's) would be any more effective in actual governance. They're certainly more chaotic (and democratic), though. Perhaps coalition-building is a good thing (regardless of the odd bedfellows it creates): time will tell how well it works out in the UK. As I recall, it was very destabilizing to the French government when I lived there in the early 90s.

In my opinion, a huge part of the problem is the primary system, in which extreme factions of the parties' bases (especially in outlying electorates like NH, IA and SC) distort what ultimately results in real choices every four years. I'd prefer tinkering with that (maybe a one-day, ultrasuper-Tuesday for everybody?) before toying with the Electoral College, but frankly am not informed enough to hazard more than proposing that it be given some more thought and study.

Australia has compulsory voting and a Parliamentary system involving multiple parties, but I can't see that working here, where one's option to abstain from the process is considered a fundamental right.

 

[B_crackoff]

I think Rosenkrantz's wig is unconsionable!

In the spirit of this thread I would like to thank VB for the link, especially for the PJ O'Rourke segement - he used to be on UK TV a lot in the 90s - he's still a very good satirist - like a lesser Gore Vidal who actually likes the world!

AV is still an awful system where people get elected by lists, as there's normally a multi member constituency. AV+ actually allows smaller parties to be elected, but these are floating representatives, who aren't attached to any constituency.

I prefer FPTP in one chamber, & a wholly proportional, or FPTP with proportional top up second chamber. At least every party would actually be represented and have a voice in Parliamant. Italy has a form of PR, & has had around 50 governments since the war. Co-operation can sometimes lead to larger parties being held to ransom over issues by very small parties, & regardless of who wins, this is anathema to me.

A form of PR in the HoR, would at least allow certain groups to be heard, with the opportunity to become mainstream, which cannot happen at present.

That said, I'm pretty sure that the Founding Fathers intended gridlock, & somehow or other, that's what the people vote for.

The party in favour of AV (who are most confident of getting second choice votes) are the LibDems - coalition partners now, & experiencing an evaporation of support.

Unfortunately, neither of the 3 main parties in the UK wish to take the platform with the minor parties, which makes any AV, or proportionate voting system, systemmically advantageous to incumbents. Without equal, or even vastly increased airtime, there remains a mountain to climb for those with different ideas.

 

[Cuddler]

It has nothing to do with money. Our voting system is severely flawed when you try to introduce more than two parties. It's called "vote splitting" and it weakens the voting power of the people. Additional parties that siphon off votes from the major party on the same side of the political spectrum, weakening the voting power of those people.

...

That's not very democratic because those third party voting results failed to reflect the political interests of the overall majority, and it's the reason why introducing third parties weakens the voting power of those who choose to vote for a third party candidate. Our system only works with two parties.

The answer to the problem is to change to another voting system where third party votes would wield actual voting power for the political beliefs that vote represents, and would yield results that reflect the political interests of the citizenry.

This is exactly what happens here in Canada. We have a winner-takes-all parliamentary system. The left of center is split between the Liberals, the New Democrats, and the Greens. The right used to be split between the Reform party, the Canadian Alliance (right both economically and socially), and the Progressive Conservative Party (right on economic, centrist on social issues), but they united to form the Conservative Party. There's also the Quebec Block, a party that's only present in Quebec. They are left of center and want an independent Quebec.

Before CRAP united to form the Conservative Party, the Liberals formed government for over a decade (15 years?). Since then the Conservatives have formed minority governments, even though they only get about a third of the popular vote. It's reported that 35% is needed to get a majority.

Without (instant) runoffs, a relatively well united group wins. Just another version of "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."

 

[phillyhangin]

In my opinion, a huge part of the problem is the primary system, in which extreme factions of the parties' bases (especially in outlying electorates like NH, IA and SC) distort what ultimately results in real choices every four years. I'd prefer tinkering with that (maybe a one-day, ultrasuper-Tuesday for everybody?) before toying with the Electoral College, but frankly am not informed enough to hazard more than proposing that it be given some more thought and study.

I have a bit of a problem with the philosophy behind the Electoral College: It was originally proposed because the Framers of the US Constitution - or at least a vocal enough minority of them - didn't feel that the "common man" was sufficiently well-educated enough to make informed decisions about their leaders, so they proposed a system whereby state Governors would appoint people to elect the President on behalf of the unwashed masses. This is the same reason we have a bicameral legislature; they thought that the directly elected House of Representatives would act hastily - i.e. in the interests of the "common man" as opposed to those of wealthy landowners such as themselves - so they created a second chamber (the Senate) that was originally appointed by state Governors and had the power to overrule the "lower" house if it passed any laws they didn't like. Conservative Framers borrowed this from the English system, of course, wherein the House of Commons (representing the interests of the "common man") could be overruled at any point by the House of Lords (representing the wealthy noble classes) in case the HoC did anything "rash," like passing laws to tax the wealthy or limit their ability to exploit their workers or some such. (I believe that under the modern UK system, the balance of power has shifted toward the HoC, but I'm not sure; I seem to recall hearing talk of abolishing the HoL several years back.)

Unfortunately, while the members of the EC are in theory supposed to follow the popular vote, that's not actually required in all states, so some members of the EC can vote for a candidate that did not win the popular vote in their state if they feel in their wisdom that candidate A would be "better" than candidate B - common people be damned! (This can be a problem because Republican Governors tend to appoint people who view Republicans favorably and Democratic Governors tend to appoint people who view Democrats favorably.) There's also the issue that some states allocate their EC votes proportionally (i.e. if Candidate A wins 40% of the popular vote, he or she gets 40% of that state's Electoral votes) whereas other states are all-or-nothing, so in some states, the process is more democratic than others. My biggest objection is that if the EC doesn't vote according to the popular vote (and do so proportionally in all states), then it's not truly a democratic process, but if it does vote according to the popular vote, it's redundant; either way, the system leaves a lot to be desired.

As for primaries, I agree that they are part of the problem because they encourage polarizing candidates and allow states with small populations to influence the choices of the entire nation. Under some proportional systems, you vote for a party (based on its platform) during the general election, and if that party wins, the members of that party have an internal election (open only to party members) to elect the person to fill that office. This works whether you're filling a single seat or multiple openings; in the case of multiple openings, the party wins seats in proportion to its share of the general election votes and then elects as many candidates as are needed to fill those open seats through its members-only election. (This is the system I lean toward personally, especially when it's combined with ranked voting for instant runoffs.)

 

[MercyfulFate]

Our two party system is a sham, and it makes the people extremely easy to divide and conquer. Look at sports rivalries, it's pretty much the same concept.

People need to vote for 3rd parties en masse, and things will change. However the media, and others have told them doing so is the death knell for the lesser of two evils, so they never will.

I vote 3rd party now, and will continue to. I won't vote for Obama over McCain just because I despise McCain for example.