“Kevin”:http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_09/004738.php and “Matthew”:http://yglesias.typepad.com/matthew/2004/09/gerrymandering.html have good posts on redistricting, although like Brian, I’m a little unsure whether intra-party competition is always such a good thing (in Ireland, where we have a PR-STV system, the result is intense localism – politicians perceive their main duty as “bothering civil servants” to get favours for their constituents). There’s another problem though, that’s less often raised by smart centrist Democrats – the enormous institutional barriers that stand in the way of third parties. Ballot access rules in many states are deliberately and systematically skewed to make it difficult for third parties to gain a place on the ballot sheets. In its own way, this is every bit as anti-democratic as gerrymandering – not only does it make it more difficult for third parties to gain elected office, but it also makes the main parties less sensitive to voter dissatisfaction (voters don’t have other political alternatives that they can credibly threaten to vote for). Unlike redistricting, this is the result of a tacit oligopoly between the two main parties, and is thus, I suspect, even less susceptible to reform. This is not to say by any means that these official barriers are the only impediments to third party influence in the US, but they’re surely a significant part of the story.
Not only would I like to see left third parties better able to influence the Democrats, but I suspect it would be a good thing for American politics if there were a viable Libertarian party. Certainly, some of the financial and political excesses of the Bush administration might have been curtailed if there had been a credible likelihood of libertarian-leaning voters going elsewhere. Given all the above, I have mixed feelings when I read about “Nader’s success”:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35865-2004Sep20.html in getting on the ballot in various states. I’m hugely unimpressed with him as a candidate, I don’t want him to attract votes, and I’m perfectly aware that the Republicans have probably engaged in as many dodgy manoeuvres to get him on the ballot as the Democrats have to try to get him off. Nonetheless, a small piece of me can’t help feeling happy whenever the courts adopt (as I think they should adopt) a broad and flexible standard as to who should and should not be able to get on the ballot.
{ 38 comments }
Russell Arben Fox 09.21.04 at 2:34 am
I couldn’t agree more Henry. Matt’s original suggestion for ending gerrymandering is a shade too clever, as are some of those who’ve commented on his blog. Basically, it’s a good thing to be able to elect representatives who have some local/regional/communal connection to portions of the electorate; eliminating such boundaries in the name of increasing intra-party rivalries isn’t likely to improve the (already poor) level of representation much. Getting the electoral rulemaking power significantly out of the hands of those who win elections, as Brian and you both suggest, is crucial to ending the oligarchic restrictions which do so much to preventing serious competitive elections, and serious third parties, from emerging more regularly.
As for which third parties I like to see more influential, like you, I think it’d be a good thing if the Libertarians were a stronger electoral force. Not because I’d like to see anyone from that party elected, but because I can’t think of any movement better suited to breaking up the current ideological patchworks which pass for “liberalism” and “conservatism” in America. Serious libertarian candidates would, most obviously, draw into their fold fiscal Republican voters who couldn’t care less about the religious right and are primarily motivated by the call for tax-cutting; but they might also attract Democratic voters who really aren’t egalitarians and basically only pull that lever because they wanted to defend abortion rights. The way could then, perhaps, be opened to the formation of a genuinely populist party, where being socially “conservative” and economically “liberal” is the heart of the platform, rather than some dubious marginal element which candidates acknowledge only after having placated their base. (Of course, this assumes such a combination is an actual, popular possibility; according to Thomas Frank and his ilk it isn’t: social conservatives who could/should otherwise be supportive of egalitarian politices have, according to them, simply been sold a cultural bill of goods by nefarious economic elites. But Frank’s wrong.)
P O'Neill 09.21.04 at 3:09 am
>>
in Ireland, where we have a PR-STV system, the result is intense localism – politicians perceive their main duty as “bothering civil servants†to get favours for their constituents
>>
Right…but in the Republic, we’ve added to STV the quirk of multi-seat constituencies with PR. We could keep PR-STV and change it in some way (e.g. party lists, or fewer total seats) that could end some of the clientelism while keeping the good part of STV.
bob mcmanus 09.21.04 at 3:12 am
It is on days like this that my true gut values are revealed to myself. This, and the preceding post about redistricting, to me approach a kind of blasphemy.
It is a poor workman that blames his tools. 225 years of experience should be enough to see that that the basic structure of the system is versatile enough to handle any policy difficulties, albeit slowly and incrementally, as intended.
Should the people and the Constitution come into conflict, change the people, not the Constitution. Adjust their attitudes, expectations. This is a very difficult and slow process, thank the Founders, but an infinitely safer process than changing the system on a whim. And is what politics is about.
And duck while I throw some Federalist Papers and Burke at you.
Barry Freed 09.21.04 at 3:13 am
I’m no libertarian (in fact I’m highly critical of libertarianism, though not of civil-libertarianism.) But it has long been a mystery to me why the Libertarian Party, for all the self-professed libertarians on the net, does so poorly.
Jack Monarch 09.21.04 at 3:25 am
Bob, could your gut feel disturbed because this analysis does not sit well with the steady diet of “we are the best democracy in the world” you are used to being fed?
American democracy is in trouble. Technology has made gerrymandering much more efficent and the two parties see no reason to lose any of the power they have accumulated.
The “basic structure of the system” includes the option to amend. “Change the people” sounds almost fascist. Wake up, start campaigning for an amendment and stop pretending there haven’t already been 27.
Dave 09.21.04 at 3:26 am
By the way, you aren’t displaying your trackback URL’s in each post, and trackbacks don’t seem to be showing up. What’s wrong?
bob mcmanus 09.21.04 at 3:34 am
Not at all fascist, entirely democratic.
Might I just suggest that whatever problems America is experiencing (we have been in trouble before, and sometimes worse) are largely due to the moderates in each party excessively acceding to their wings?
That if we had more Jim Jeffords, and God help me, Zell Millers, the polarization might be alleviated?
That if for instance, the pro-life crowd and gay marriage crowd were told they can’t have their way instead of being promised success on the fictitious basis of the destruction of the opposition?
Brennan Griffin 09.21.04 at 3:48 am
Ballot access is actually fairly simple in most states if you have a real grassroots base and some sort of fundraising apparatus. When Nader had the endorsement of the Greens nationally, he was on most ballots. When he lost that endorsement, he had to scrape up his own volunteers and fundraising, and has not had an easy time of it.
The better way to get real, viable alternative parties is through fusion. New York State has fusion, where a candidate can run as a Democrat and as a Liberal party endorsee. Because of that, New York has several parties whose endorsement swings close elections. Giuliani originally became mayor in large part because the Liberal Party endorsed him. Dyed in the wool Democrats couldn’t actually vote for a Republican, but how bad could a Liberal candidate be? Similarly, Pataki won the governor with the endorsement of the Conservatives.
The Working Families Party is a labor and community backed party that is growing in strength in the last few years. (Full disclosure, I work for one of the community groups that founded it).
The New Party (which evolved into the WFP later on in the states where fusion still existed) actually took a case to the supreme court to try to force all states to require fusion, and lost. Since then, there have been some moves to get a few states to change their rules to allow fusion.
So far, its the only viable method I’ve heard that would allow a real, long-term alternative party movement in the US. Otherwise you’re electing city councilpeople in the weird part of town or playing the spoiler in close elections, and you can’t build widespread influence that way, IMHO.
WillieStyle 09.21.04 at 3:50 am
That if for instance, the pro-life crowd and gay marriage crowd were told they can’t have their way instead of being promised success on the fictitious basis of the destruction of the opposition?
The gay marriage crowd is being promised success?!
Care to point out a single high level Democrat that supports gay marriage?
Jack Monarch 09.21.04 at 3:56 am
The system might look broken, but, if we can just get people to behave in the ‘right’ way, we can approximate a healthy system.
Don’t question the founders or the amenders (save the 18th, what were they drinking?), and just try to ignore the feeling of sickness that the 98% re-election rate brings on.
bob mcmanus 09.21.04 at 4:02 am
Barney Frank? Bad example. How about National Health Care> The left is not very strong right now, and so not promising much, which is the kind of problem I am talking about. This is solved with organization, redefining and refining of mission, local recruitment, the kinds of things the left did several times in our history and the right has done successfully in the last generation.
Looked at the 27 amendments, and could find very few I would consider structurally significant.
And the post civil-war amendments really weren’t enforced for a
century.
American democracy and freedom does not come from a piece of paper, nor from the people. It comes from the relationship the people have to the piece of paper.
Ken D. 09.21.04 at 4:08 am
The reason third parties flounder in the U.S. is not ballot access rules. It is the prevelance of plurality-wins general elections, plus deliberately fragmented government (bicameral legislature, elected executive) that denies a small third party the hope of holding a strong balance of power. This structure effectively compels a duopoly of broad coalition-parties. Under this system, a third party with any success at all hurts the major party it has more in common with, and causes net damage to its cause. The fundamental rules could be changed — theoretically; but the “ins” of both parties are the winners under the current system and thus very conservative on this issue, so don’t hold your breath. Those causes will prosper whose advocates recognize these realities and play the game as it is played. Exhibit A: the anti-abortion movement.
Nicholas Weininger 09.21.04 at 4:12 am
The Libertarian Party’s viability problem is not ballot access; they’ve been on the ballot in at least 48 states every presidential election year since (IIRC) 1980. It may be that the amount of resources required to accomplish that feat has drained the party of campaign funds, volunteer time, etc. that it otherwise could have used to get more votes, but I doubt it.
The more important proximal problems with the party, I think, are sectarian squabbling and candidates oblivious to their image problems (from the famous blue man of Montana to the various tax resisters). These are in turn side effects of the fundamental problem: the Libertarian Party is an attempt to build a coherent, energetic political organization out of people who basically hate politics and want the political process out of their lives. There is a cognitive disconnect inherent in trying to get people to vote for you when the heart of your philosophy is that most of the issues you care about should not be subject to majority vote.
bob mcmanus 09.21.04 at 4:17 am
Another example: that a proportion of American blacks believe and are told they only be fairly represented by representatives of their own race. This is incredibly pernicious and destructive, has led to a mistaken structural adjustment, and likely the single most important factor in Republican controlling the house.
Bad politicians.
Jack Monarch 09.21.04 at 4:18 am
Bob, I presume you would have opposed the 17th on similar grounds?
“The state legislatures need to learn compromise and the people should demand less corruption”
Or did the 17th become sacred the moment it was ratified?
Nicholas Weininger 09.21.04 at 4:22 am
And a comment on Russell Arben Fox’s comment: for the reasons I list I very much doubt that the Libertarian Party will ever have the populism-facilitating effect he describes, but I agree that the constituency is there for it. The NYT had an article on Sunday describing just that constituency:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/19/politics/campaign/19state.html
Basically the same bunch that voted for William Jennings Bryan a hundred years ago; how little things change.
Of course, as a thoroughgoing laissez-faire hedonist who thinks H.L. Mencken was far too kind to Bryan and his followers, my reaction to this is at least as negative as Mr. Fox’s is positive. It’s bad enough, to paraphrase the Sage of Baltimore, that Kansans (and Missourians) now get to impose one or the other half– depending on the party in power– of their dunghill ideas upon their betters; if they ever get to push through the whole package liberty in this country will be well and truly dead.
bob mcmanus 09.21.04 at 4:24 am
Haven’t studied it, but to the extent I understand it, no I do not approve of the direct election of Senators. Or rather, don’t quite see why it was necessary.
I would guess there was more widespread participation in politics at a local level before the amendment than after.
WillieStyle 09.21.04 at 4:27 am
Barney Frank?
Hah, thanks for that Bob. You’re regularly one of the most entettaining commenters around.
And the post civil-war amendments really weren’t enforced for a
century.
And that was a bad thing right?
Re the original topic:
I think hipster liberals like me and the folks at Crooked Timber would be sorely disappointed if third parties gained prominence. I suspect you expect a large “Liberal Dem”/Green type party to constantly drag the Dems to the left. This would most emphatically NOT happen. Ross Perot was like a gazillion times more successful than Ralph Nader.
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.
Jack Monarch 09.21.04 at 4:44 am
I’m still confused. Is campaigning to repeal the 17th blasphemy or not?
bob mcmanus 09.21.04 at 4:47 am
“And the post civil-war amendments really weren’t enforced for a
century.
And that was a bad thing right?”
Well, yeah, I guess it was a bad thing, but it is mostly an empirical thing. To me it was a structural change that a super-majority of the people weren’t ready to pay the costs of full implementation. And so it was ignored.
The empirical truth it shows is that the constitution is just a piece of paper without the popular will. In America, we either do get the government we want, or the one we deserve.
bob mcmanus 09.21.04 at 5:09 am
“I’m still confused. Is campaigning to repeal the 17th blasphemy or not?”
Whatever. I am not sure it was a significant structural, as incorporation was.
Somehow if my Texas legislature were to appoint my two senators, I cannot imagine them being much worse or much better than Hutchinson or Cornyn. Like I said, I don’t know the history, but if it was supposed to eliminate corrupt and incompetent Senators, I don’t think it worked.
pj 09.21.04 at 6:27 am
The general reason accepted by the United States Supreme Court in ballot access cases is that states can require some requirements of real support before putting someone on the ballot to avoid confusion and distraction. After the 2000 election, in which the distraction and problems caused by third parties wrecked the presidential election, I can’t agree more. The reason why the infamous “butterfly ballot” was needed was because instead of 2 or 4 candidates for president, there were about a dozen. In Jacksonsville, the presidential field went on for two pages, and a lot of people mistakenly voted the second page, spoiling their ballots. Why should the presidential election turn on a few crazies and egomaniacs who want to get themselves on the ballot when they are not viable candidates for the presidency? It makes no sense to me.
Randolph Fritz 09.21.04 at 8:03 am
I draw the attention of all to The Center for Voting and Democracy, http://www.fairvote.org/
abb1 09.21.04 at 9:41 am
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.
Chris Bertram 09.21.04 at 10:05 am
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?
Russell Arben Fox 09.21.04 at 12:18 pm
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.
BenA 09.21.04 at 1:52 pm
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.
rea 09.21.04 at 2:57 pm
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.
bob mcmanus 09.21.04 at 5:27 pm
“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.
digamma 09.21.04 at 5:50 pm
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.
digamma 09.21.04 at 5:52 pm
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.
WillieStyle 09.21.04 at 11:52 pm
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.
Dubious 09.22.04 at 12:29 am
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.
Dubious 09.22.04 at 12:30 am
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.
Dubious 09.22.04 at 12:47 am
Apologies for the double-post.
Russell Arben Fox 09.22.04 at 2:51 am
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.
abb1 09.22.04 at 7:39 am
Same here.
Dubious 09.22.04 at 5:37 pm
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.
Comments on this entry are closed.