Comments on: Party oligopoly

By: Dubious

Dubious — Wed, 22 Sep 2004 17:37:23 +0000

I meant weird in the sense of novel rather than abnormal. I would welcome such a change too. Extensively multi-party systems with fragmentation seem to lead to bad outcomes stability-wise. But the two-party system stifles ideological diversity. Having a multi-party House, a 2 party Senate and a President elected for a full 4 year term (thus not no-confidenceable when a coalition starts infighting) by either winner-takes-all state Electoral College votes or proportional multi-party Electoral college system would seem like a good way to get some more ideological diversity without introducing a lot more instability.

By: abb1

abb1 — Wed, 22 Sep 2004 07:39:15 +0000

Same here.

By: Russell Arben Fox

Russell Arben Fox — Wed, 22 Sep 2004 02:51:07 +0000

The outcome you describe, Dubious, might well be a “weird system,” but as a voter, I’d be delighted to have genuine Christian socialist and/or social democrat options available come election time.

By: Dubious

Dubious — Wed, 22 Sep 2004 00:47:19 +0000

Apologies for the double-post.

By: Dubious

Dubious — Wed, 22 Sep 2004 00:30:33 +0000

If portional party-based representation were to be sprung on the House but not the Senate, we’d have a weird system, I think. IMHO, the House would fracture into Social Democrats and Christian Democrats (representing most of what are now the Democratic and Republican parties—culturally conservative, economically populist) plus Greens/UK-style Liberal Democrats (representing the left wing of the Democratic party) plus a socially tolerant, market-oriented classical liberal watered-down Libertarian party made up of the small-govt Republicans, true Libertarians who would hold their noses, and business-friendly DLC types. I think Germany has classical Liberal parties and I think they poll about level with Greens, vying for 3rd/4th place. The Senate would have to remain the preserve of the two-party system, which would probably mean SocDems and ChrisDems.

By: Dubious

Dubious — Wed, 22 Sep 2004 00:29:40 +0000

If portional party-based representation were to be sprung on the House but not the Senate, we’d have a weird system, I think. IMHO, the House would fracture into Social Democrats and Christian Democrats (representing most of what is now Democrat and Republican parties—culturally conservative, economically populist) plus Greens/UK-style Liberal Democrats (representing the left wing of the Democratic party) plus a socially tolerant, market-oriented classical liberal watered-down Libertarian party made up of the small-govt Republicans, true Libertarians who would hold their noses, and business-friendly DLC types. I think Germany has classical Liberal parties and I think they poll about level with Greens, vying for 3rd/4th place. The Senate would have to remain the preserve of the two-party system, which would probably mean SocDems and ChrisDems.

By: WillieStyle

WillieStyle — Tue, 21 Sep 2004 23:52:06 +0000

Zell Miller, as you correctly imply, has turned into a partisan, reactionary nutcase; the question is whether such nutcases really would characterize the bulk of any such populist party which might emerge following a realignment. Honestly, I don’t know. You might be right Russell. An argument could be made that once such a party rose to power, it would inevitably mellow as the persecution complex Frank talks about waned. Certainly, if evangelicals (for example) ever faced the prospect of rewriting the nation’s laws, many would balk at some of the excesses of Falwell et al. However, the mellowing hypothesis is based on the presmise that a culturaly reactionary party would actually accomplish much of anything. I doubt this very much. The ugly truth is that Hollywood really does dictate the cultural evolution of America. Before its might, the legislature (and even conservaive judges) would be powerless.

By: digamma

digamma — Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:52:24 +0000

The most viable third party would be a culturally reactionary, militarist, populist party (an army of Zell Millers). If such a party was willing to embrace blacks (who would be a natural constituent) it would be a force to be reckoned with. I can definitely see that happening. It would have huge appeal to the scared mothers who will vote for anyone who will do something to keep our children safe. That something could be anything from war to redistribution, but it sure as hell wouldn't be very libertarian.

By: digamma

digamma — Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:50:55 +0000

The most viable third party would be a culturally reactionary, militarist, populist party (an army of Zell Millers). If such a party was willing to embrace blacks (who would be a natural constituent) it would be a force to be reckoned with. I can definitely see that happening. It would have huge appeal to the scared mothers who will vote for anyone who will do something to keep our children safe. That something could be anything from war to redistribution, but it sure as hell wouldn't be very libertarian.

By: bob mcmanus

bob mcmanus — Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:27:13 +0000

“This rather reminded me of Bertolt Brecht’s poem, “The Solution” People making fun of me. Whine. As an example, for someone who is pro-life, is the better option to pass a right-to-life amendment, or to try to change social attitudes toward abortion? Is the gay rights movement wiser to use the courts to recognize gay marriage, or to devote their resources to making homosexuality more generally acceptable? Hasn’t it always been more efficient in America to move the center of an existing party in a direction, than starting a new political party from scratch? And the Liberatarian Party is funny, because there always seems to be one plank of its platform that is a deal-killer for any particular possible voting constituency. But a party that favors drug legalization while accepting gun regulation would not be libertarian.

By: rea

rea — Tue, 21 Sep 2004 14:57:22 +0000

The 17th Amendment did not simply impose popular election of senators out of a clear blue sky. By the tme the amendment was adopted, most states required a popular election, and bound the state legislatures to varying degrees to follow the result.

By: BenA

BenA — Tue, 21 Sep 2004 13:52:09 +0000

Ballot access is actually fairly simple in most states if you have a real grassroots base and some sort of fundraising apparatus. Gotta disagree with this. Having been involved with the New Party, and now with the Greens, I can tell you that ballot access laws are anything but simple. They are often arcane and confusing (hence all the challenges one always reads about). They vary enormously from state to state (and my state, Oklahoma, has pretty much the worst ones in the country). Candidates with lots of money can effectively buy their way onto the ballot in most states by paying signature collectors. But it's often much more expensive to get a line for a party. And maintaining that line can be nearly impossible, so every two or four years the process needs to be repeated, wasting a huge amount of time and money. It's worth pointing out that ballot access drives have nothing to do with promoting a party or a candidate. Their very nature is to appeal to folks who might not vote for the candidate, but can be convinced that out of fairness s/he deserves to be on the ballot. Political messages are almost always muted in these efforts. They are the political equivalent of treading water. What does this mean practically? At enormous cost and effort, parties with large financial resources (usually ones with some conservative appeal, like the Libertarians, or Reform in the 1990s) can buy their way onto most ballots in most election cycles. Independent presidential candidates, especially those of use to one of the two major parties, also often have the resources available to get on most ballots. Others are often shut out, except in the handful of states with relatively easy ballot access. For more on ballot access and efforts to reform it, check out Ballot Access News.

By: Russell Arben Fox

Russell Arben Fox — Tue, 21 Sep 2004 12:18:37 +0000

The most viable third party would be a culturally reactionary, militarist, populist party (an army of Zell Millers). If such a party was willing to embrace blacks (who would be a natural constituent) it would be a force to be reckoned with. The Democrats would then become the cosmopolitan, bourgeois, urban bohemian party which could never take power on its own. The Republicans would essentially revert to the Blue Blood, big money minority part of old. In the final reckoning, I suspect there’d be few actual libertarians. You may be right Williestyle. I certainly at least agree with you that the powers that be in the Republican party would quickly embrace the policy preferences of “the Blue Blood, big money” population, and eschew all most if not all social conservatism, if the rise of the Libertarians or some other third party gave them cause to do so. Thomas Frank was right about that much, at least—there are oligarchs who benefit from the existence of a Christian right fervor which they don’t agree with. The problem comes when Frank insists such fervor is a distraction, or even simply manufactured, which definitely isn’t the case. Zell Miller, as you correctly imply, has turned into a partisan, reactionary nutcase; the question is whether such nutcases really would characterize the bulk of any such populist party which might emerge following a realignment. Honestly, I don’t know. But I it’s pure secular elitism to rely on Mencken and others who never thought anything good (that is, any concern for social goods) could ever come out of the heartland. I’ll just have to respectfully disagree with Nicholas Weiniger; I don’t think a populist religious orientation always or even necessarily results in a Miller-like crusade against all things liberal, not to mention progressive.

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Tue, 21 Sep 2004 10:05:21 +0000

Bob McManus: bq. Should the people and the Constitution come into conflict, change the people, not the Constitution. Adjust their attitudes, expectations. This rather reminded me of Bertolt Brecht's poem, "The Solution": After the uprising of the 17th June The Secretary of the Writers Union Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee Stating that the people Had forfeited the confidence of the government And could win it back only By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier In that case for the government To dissolve the people And elect another?

By: abb1

abb1 — Tue, 21 Sep 2004 09:41:04 +0000

What ken d said. The winner takes all system practically eliminates any possibility of viable ‘third’ parties. Under the WTA system coalescing of smaller political parties has to take place before the elections. The choice is to unite before the elections or to be left out completely. It’s quite hopeless.