I don't know anything about Finnish politics, but I feel like punditry would be more interesting if we, like Finland, had three fairly evenly matched parties, one in the center, one in the right, and one on the left. Not that I'm by any means an enthusiastic booster of centrist third party efforts. It's just that, when you think about it, a robust multi-party system grounded in proportional representation elections make it much less obvious what the right political strategy is. The Center Party can't very well win votes by "moving to the center," after all.
« NCAA Update | Main | The Experience Thing »
Imagine If...
18 Mar 2007 03:18 pm
Comments (28)
Okay, where exactly is the center in American politics? I mean, today's U.S. Democrat Party will probably be a center right party in most European or South American countries.
On another note, I lived in Australia for 3 years. There are two main parties in Australia: Labour and the Liberals (who are actually conservative, and always form a coalition with the Nationals/Country Party), and a bunch of other small parties. One of the smaller parties was actually called the Democrats, who were a centrist party and whose motto was, "we'll keep the other parties honest." Well, they did not do that or much of anything else.
Personally, I don't think that third parties will work in America. The Democrats and Republicans are too large, too powerful, and too well entrenched for there to be any changes. And multi-party states are not necessarily better - look at Israel or Italy.
IRV IRV IRV IRV ... IRV!
If the left stopped wasting its votes on parties out of our two-party system (The Greens, or, here in MN, the Independence Party), then the Right would do far worse.
The Left doesn't like politics much and foolishly believes good government and good policy win elections. It doesn't understand the Dems are a coalition of what would be multiple parties elsewhere.
IRV!
oops, my comment was cut short.
"But, IRV gets rid of those electability concerns that plague liberals' consciences ... Fix our system first (IRV) and the left reigns forever and ever as multiple parties."
Okay, where exactly is the center in American politics? I mean, today's U.S. Democrat Party will probably be a center right party in most European or South American countries.
While the center of gravity in American politics is to the right of where it is in the US, this is more a matter of the legacy of the past than it is a matter of the actual ideology of the parties. Given how far to the right Labour, or the SPD, have moved in recent years, I fail to understand this frequently r epeated contention.
In terms of multi-party systems, I think the system in the Benelux countries, where you have, about evenly matched, Social Democratic, Liberal, and Christian Democratic parties seems like the most sensible position. While the Social Democrats are clearly the left most party, the two center-right parties are center-right in different ways, and thus any of the three coalitions becomes theoretically conceivable. (Germany has been somewhat the same, except that the Liberals are considerably smaller. There've been Social Democrat/Liberal coalitions (1969-1982), Social Democrat/Christian Democrat grand coalitions (1966-1969, 2005-present), and Christian Democrat/Liberal coalitions (1949-1966, 1982-1998). )
I want the party led by the woman who looks like Conan O'Brien to win
Long live Finland.
We actually may have a three party system, except one of those (the independents) doesn't run candidates.
Take the latest Newsweek poll as an exemplar:
27. Do you consider yourself a Republican, Democrat, or Independent?
25% Republican
36% Democrat
33% Independent
In EU terms, the Republicans would be to the right of the Christian Democrats, the Democrats would be to the right of the Social Democrats (where fascist parties of one sort of the other are located in some EU countries), the Independents would be: what?
Some DLC-types would argue that the US independents are crucial and they are to the right of the Democrats. Questions 11, 12, and 13 in the Newsweek poll suggest that they are really quite close to the Democrats on the issues identified. Other polls in the last year or so suggest this as well. Together the Indys and the Dems are 69% percent of those questioned in the poll.
Is it time for a real national third party in the US that gives the independents a home? Are the Blue Dog Dems speaking to the independents?
I think the Blue Dogs are just afraid of the Repubs or are DINOs, since on these issues and many others, the independents are more like the Progressive caucas of the Dems than they are to the Blue Dogs.
Today, the Dems are (internally) ungovernable and the Repubs are incapable of governance. Such a choice!
Whoops! I put my parenthesized comment in the wrong place, LOL.
Should read:
In EU terms, the Republicans would be to the right of the Christian Democrats (where fascist parties of one sort of the other are located in some EU countries), the Democrats would be to the right of the Social Democrats, and the Independents would be: what?
Jim,
Republicans are to the right of fascist parties? Please explain.
In your rubric, I would think American independents would tend to vote for Christian Democrats.
But Matt, are you really suggesting we imitate the Finnish menace? I mean, what with the SMS break-ups and whatnot.
What type of voting system does Finnland use? It's the voting system that determines two-party systems.
And I'm not sure why IRV, which is still a single-vote/single-winner plurality system (just like what we currently have) is supposed to promote a multi-party system. For our government a range voting system would be best, but it's too complicated. The next best thing is an approval system where everyone can vote for any candidate in any election. Bye-bye wasted vote dilemma, hello multiple parties!
yours/
peter.
Peter,
I wasn't saying it'd promote multiple parties (which is bad and politically impossible), but would promote better outcomes (Dems win as votes aren't wasted).
I'm not anti-two-party-system, I'm anti-right-wing (not necessarily anti-GOP, though). IRV is a easier step toward less right wing power, without more radical voting reform.
clarifying for 'right':
the Republicans would be to the [far] right (where fascist parties of one sort of the other are located in some EU countries) of the Christian Democrats
Perhaps the independents are more like the UK Liberal Democrats (with some identifying with the more liberal variants of the Christian Democrats.
The point I'm making (badly) is that the US independents are not very independent anymore and are more attuned to the Dems than the current Republicans - with the obvious caution that no one really knows how the independents actually vote. Clealy, the closeness of US elections suggests many have voted with the GOP as well. I guess many of those are more CorpCons than TheoCons.
Hope you're following the Quebec election:
http://calgarygrit.blogspot.com/2007/03/neck-and-neck-and-neck.html
Got it.
And I'm not saying Approval Voting would eliminate the two-party system either. It's the single-winner district aspect of our current system that keeps everyone focused on the two front-runners, thus a two-party system.
But an approval voting system would eliminate the Hobson's choice our current system uses to crush third-parties and independents. Besides, it's non-partisan in that it eliminates spoilers and tactical voting, which, with the country so evenly split, is a legitimate threat to both parties' aspirations.
yours/
peter.
Personally, my rather-quirky idea for representation is that each district (each district being probably larger than the current ones, although, as we will see, they don't have to be exactly the same size) send multiple delegates (from two to five), and then *each delegate has the same number of votes on the floor of the legislature as he received in her election.* That way, if you have a district where one candidate received 158,239 votes and another received 121,994 votes, they would both go to the legislature, and both vote with the number of votes they received.
There would have to be a way of keeping the number of representatives reasonably low, so that the legislature doesn't consist of 6,000 people, some of them having only received 58 votes. Also, while districts could be as small as they want (to keep it at one district per state, for instance), I'd say there should be a cap on how big they could be -- say, 1% of the population at most.
Well, pace JimPortland, I think the reason why the US has crystallized (ossified?) into a two-party system is that it 1) is (relatively) stable and predictable and 2) subsumes, right across the political spectrum, a range of ideological/political philosphies/positions under point 1). At least for those politically active enough to care about party affiliation.
From right to left; The Republican Party is - at least according to most CW - pretty much divided into "religious conservative" and "business conservative" wings: wings which in, say, a European context, would probably be their own separate parties: the former occupying the "Ultranationalist"/Clericalist zone, the latter, more or less, the center-rightist "Christian Democrat" spot. With the "CD" party being more "mainstream" and likelier to attract uncommitted/wavering voters. The Democrats here take up the partisan spectrum which in other lands might be occupied by a "Social Democrat" (i.e. center-left) party, a more-or-less-orthodox "Socialist" party, and the leftward fringes which, of late, the Greens have managed to claim. And of course, the uncommitted/wavering more likely to support the "SD" option (especially as the US political spectrum is right-shifted way to starboard: even mild "socialism" here is the province of moonbat-land).
SO my guess is that the American two-party system substitutes for about five parties in a "European" one: and how we would govern this country (given that we do not have a strictly "parliamentary" legislature) with FIVE parties jockeying for influence in Congress (it's bad enough with two!) is beyond me. A two-party system may not be perfect: but it certainly has served us OK for 150 years or so.
In terms of political strategy the effectfrom North European style politics is that strategising ends up at the level of policies. You don't pander to the voters by moving your messaging to the centre, you pander by offering popular (if frequently stupid) policies. The most obvious examples are the largely successful attempts to derail pension and other benefit reforms that have happened almost everywhere
Also, for ahat its worth from someone who has seen a fair bit of different political scenes - in northern Europe centrist & standard US Democrats would ideologically count as Christian Democrats, hard left US Democrats would count as Social Democrat, Socialists or Greens, libertarian US Democrats and centre Republicans as Liberals, and Southern Democrats and all other Republicans as hard-right Christian Democrats, Nationalists or Fascists (in the non-perjorative sense, if you know what I mean). Standard Republican positions on criminal justice, national greatness, war and patriarchal morality would all be considered hard right in a Northern European context. (N Europe here defined as Scandinavia, Germany and Benelux)
This is one of the reasons the Atlantic seems a little wider at present than it was a few years ago
I agree with Peter Jackson. We have two parties mainly because our constitution rigs it that way with single representative districts.
Anyway, I'd prefer a multi-party system because I'd like to be represented in our government.
Parties move on the political map. The Center Party in Finland has during it´s existence has been in very different positions, from basically the centre-left to the far-right. The party has supported Imperial Germany and then Nazi Germany, and then was one of the favourites of Soviet Union. Happily building welfare society after the II World War and now wanting to tear it dow The party that goes under the name Conservatives in English sources is basically nothing of the sort: They are mostly wealthy liberals and in this case liberals in the American meaning of the word. Your average member and voter of the Center Party is far more conservative than those of the "Conservatives", and the wandering of the part across the political landscape is explained by the fact that the supporters of the party do not as such have any ideologue except pretty much unconditional allegiance to the party that is imprinted to them already in childhood. This also gives them Center Party always a high percentage of the votes as their loyal voters march to vote for them always, whatever their policies.
This is something of an obsession with me, so sorry for the anorak style post.
One really distinctive thing about American politics, compared to other countries, is the extreme nature of the two party system. In each election, the Democrats and Republicans combine for something like 98% of the vote, and nearly all of the seats in Congress. And this is repeated at the state level. The "third parties" are either obvious fringe groups, staffed by people who are fairly marginal themselves, who can't run candidates in all races, or occassionaly effective extensions of the Democratic or Republican machine. Occassionally an independent candidate will do well or even get elected, but never as part of a wider political movement.
This simply does not occur in any other country that holds elections. The usual model is for two large parties, that combine for about three quarters of the votes, with the other quarter going to various minor parties that still win some seats and have some effect on policy, usually within range of their actual support. The country that comes closest to having US style two party dominance is Australia. Counting the "National Party" as an extension of the right wing Liberals, which it essentially is, the two large parties combine for close to 90% of the vote, and all of the seats in the House of Representatives each election. This falls just short of the US model. Australia, not incidentally, is the only country that uses IRV.
Its not the electoral system. Canada and Britain use single member plurality (or first past the post), just like the US, and have multiparty systems. In fact, Canada has had minority government for the past few years. India uses single member plurality and has the most fragmented party system in the world. Political scientists that have studied this stuff seriously have found that there is no relationship between the electoral system and the strength of minor parties.
What distinguishes the US is that the government is run by the President, or the Governor at the state level, and not ministers responsible to the legislature. That means that the executive is the source of all patronage jobs, and the policy direction of all government departments. This creates a dichotemy in political life, you either support the President or Governor or and his policies or you oppose him. A minor party that is able to win a few seats in the legislature has nothing to bargain over. An independent gaining several million votes in a presidential contest and losing is a curiousity at best, a spoiler at worst.
This is particularly true of the U.S. President, who fills THE MOST POWERFUL OFFICE IN THE WORLD. A third party candidate entering a presidential election is exposed to all sorts of accusations of spoiling or confusing the selection of the holder of THE MOST POWERFUL OFFICE IN THE WORLD, as Nader supporters found out. If we reduced the powers of the U.S. president to even the level of the French president we wouldn't see half the vitriol and ridicule directed at minor party candidates. As things stand, the powerful presidency introduces a winner-take-all dynamic into the system not just in the sense that only one candidate can win, but the winner really does take all.
Some Latin American countries combine a U.S. style presidential system with proportional representation for legislative elections, but the result isn't what American third party advocates want. Latin American legislatures are characterized by all sorts of log rolling and pork barrel politics, engaged in by minor "parties" that are less the reflection of ideologies, and more the cover for local political machines.
There is DEFINITELY a desire in the U.S. for this. Before 1992, I would have never believed it, would have argued that it was impossible, would have laughed at anyone making the suggestion. Then I saw it happen with my own eyes, was proved wrong. The thing eventually imploded, but it was real, he was polling 1/3 for quite some time. There are plenty of people then and now not happy with either party and not close-minded about the possibility of it. They just realize how much money and organization is necessary, are realistic that without massive funds, a start-up or independent is just going to be a spoiler for getting the better of two evils choice, ala Nader. If someone with massive funds does it again, then people will get serious about considering giving their vote. Big money combined with a view that straddles both parties somehow is all that it would take for it to happen again. Witness the polls mentioned above on how many refuse to identify as GOP or Dem but insist they are Independents.
Ross Perot, Wikipedia
On February 20, 1992, he appeared on CNN's Larry King Live and announced his intention to run if his supporters could get his name on the ballot in all 50 states. With such declared policies as balancing the federal budget, firm pro-choice stance, expansion of the war on drugs, ending outsourcing of jobs, opposition to gun control, belief in protectionism on trade, his support of the Environmental Protection Agency and enacting electronic direct democracy via "electronic town halls," he became a potential candidate and soon polled roughly even with the two major party candidates....
P.S. People also realize that celebrity can offset some of the need for money, because celebrity buys free attention. Hence many took the risk of a "wasted vote" and voted for Jesse Ventura. He also brought out new voters fed up with the parties. In the end, that didn't turn out so good for the people of MN, but it just shows you the hunger out there when many think there's a chance a non-Dem or non-GOP can win. They'll actually get out and vote.
Ed,
You have a point in that Great Britain has a three party system while having a first past the post system. However you do the fact that within the districts itself there are usually only 2 parties viable. Three way elections are as rare in the UK as in the USA. The Lib-dems electoral success is purely based on being the sole opposition party in districts where either the Tories or Labour are not competitive and limited to certain regions only.
This is primarily because the parties in the UK have more control over the campaign finances compared with the USA parties who mainly depend on personal fundraising. The greater unification in the political platform that there are less Tory and labour version of conservative democrats and progressive republicans historically.
Correction:
[...]However you do miss the fact[...]
Sorry.
dear matt the center party is not necessarily any more centrist than the conservatives nowdays (it was neutralist rather than pro Americna in the cold war) in many ways the difference is the hick rights vs the snob right-and the isolationist vs the internationalist right. Indeed the center party has been moving right to gain votes from the coalition(what the conservatives are called) the last few years- and to defend their base the conservatives have come out for big tax cuts.
The Center Party did, in fact, move to the center in the '90s by abandoning some of its protectionist and socially conservative positions and adopting a more EU-friendly tone. Not even an economically centrist party is in the center on every issue, after all.
Comments closed April 01, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
The center party was originally the rural party, whereas the conservative party was for the mostly urban educated and wealthy owner class, and the social democrats were the non-revolutionary workers' party.
The center-right is split between rural and urban - not necessarily an ideological divide. There is a fairly wide consensus, including the social democrats, on big issues. The Greens refer to all of above as the "grey parties".
One anecdote of the non-american flavor of politics in Finland is that my father was for years both an activist conservative party member and and an activist teacher's union rep.
Posted by mumrik | March 18, 2007 3:51 PM