Sponsors

Breaking the Two-Party Stranglehold Email Print

By truthista
11/20/2006 07:36:05 AM EST

Following the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, mainstream media repeatedly characterized the nearly even split of votes between Republican and Democratic candidates as evidence that the nation had become "polarized." This assumed that the parties were greatly different and that voters passionately supported one or the other, assumptions that conlicted with ground truth. Nevertheless, the "polarization" theory persisted, confusing voters who otherwise might have found common ground in breaking the two-party stranglehold on the political process.

Year after year, large numbers of callers to CSPAN radio, including registered Republicans and Democrats as well as independent voters,  have complained that the parties are frustratingly similar and neither represents voter interests.  Polls, too, show that, year after year, voters have a low opinion of Congress.

What the 2000 and 2004 elections, polls and call-in opinions showed was not a polarization of voters, but voter frustration that neither party represented them.  The typical response of someone confronted with two alternatives that are not substantially different is to flip a coin. It is hardly surprising then, that the 2000 and 2004 presidential election results (as officially recorded, anyway) were statistically identical to the results of a similar number of coin flips.

If Americans were truly "polarized," results of the 2006 midterm elections should have mirrored that earlier elections. Instead, we saw many registered Republicans voting for Democrats. Colossal failures of the Bush administration and Republicans in Congress motivation motivated Americans in large numbers to vote against  Republican candidates. There is no evidence that this indicated enthusiastic support for the Democratic party. Rather, many Americans say they expect Democrats to be nearly as dismissive of their needs and concerns.

Theoretically, development of a powerful third party would give voters more choice. But, the Republican and Democratic parties have passed laws making it extremely difficult for any third party to successfully launch a candidate. Gerrymandering of voter districts gave the party in power even more control. Even if a third party candidate gets on the ballot, winning is extraordinarily difficult. The repeated trouncing of third party candidates in earlier elections, most notably Ralph Nader in 2004, left voters wary of voting for any third party, particularly at the national level.

How did the two major parties become so at odds with voter wishes? Investigation of recent scandals confirmed voter fears that politicians are heavily influenced by wealthy corporations, their power concentrated and exerted through  associations and their staffs of professional lobbyists.

What then, is the solution? The obvious one is to fight fire with fire. That happens currently, on a limited scale though nonprofit organizations like the AARP and NRA. But, nonprofits are limited by charters in the range of issues they can address, don't always represent their members' interests, and most have too few members to counter the influence of industry campaign donations.

Clearly, voters need to organize in larger numbers, as formal associations or cooperatives, devoted solely to representing voter interests, not to futhering the careers of politicians. Such an organization could develop communication efficiencies allow it to counter the expensive but short-term ad campaigns supported by industry donations. With its finger on the pulse of millions of voters, the cooperative would not have to guess if supporting a third party candidate would be practical. The ability to promise in advance a large block of votes would give the organization considerable ability to influence Congressional and political party decision making. Without the expense of fielding its own candidates, the organization could grow more quickly and could use its resources more efficiently by exerting pressures on existing political parties.

It can be said that netroots groups already are influencing elections. But, netroots groups too often are top-down organizations, with pre-determined agendas, whereas a voter association should be driven, bottom-up, by member preferences. Netroots groups typically lack the organization, interface and professional staff needed to most effectively and consistently counter the highly organized and well-funded efforts of industry lobbies. Potentially, though, a netroots group could develop into an organization with the needed structure and capabilities.

No single organization is likely to be able to draw support from a majority of voters; Americans are too diverse in their interests. The success of a voter association will therefore depend on its success in developing alliances with other organizations where their common interests would be advanced.  Hopefully, then, the voter polarization theory will finally find its rightful place - in the circular file.


KEYWORDS: , , , , , , ,

Sign up for a Complimentary Member Account... Join the community! It's fast. And it'll allow you to take advantage of all this site's great features!

< Capitalism's Redeemer: A Podcast Interview With Author Peter Barnes | Ryan's gift and the great task remaining before us >
 Display:
Breaking the Two-Party Stranglehold | 1 comment (1 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)
Consecutive Approval Voting (none / 0)
The following sentence typifies a notion that tends to be constantly reiterated in the political blogs:

The winner take all system naturally reduces to 2 dominant parties and the Republicans were one of the two parties that survived.

This is really at the heart of the central dilemma of US politics. If you hope to have any influence on the ideological structure of US politics, you must capture one of two dominant parties, because the voting structure imposes a two party system. What distresses me more than anything is that virtually every political blogger around insists on courting a totally incorrect theory about why this is the case! This contention is that: "The winner take all system naturally reduces to 2 dominant parties and the Republicans were one of the two parties that survived" -- and this is just flat-out WRONG!!!

Careless thinking might lead us to see a winner take all syndrome as the cause of our inflexible two-party pseudo-democracy. BUT THAT IS TOTALLY WRONG. The real cause of the two-party pseudo-democracy is really the direct consequence of THE BLACK HAT SYNDROME! This Black Hat Syndrome is the outcome that results when we have a White Hat (relative to each individual voter -- say, for example, Ralph Nader), a Gray Hat (say, for example, John Kerry), and a Black Hat (say, for example, George W. Bush) in a political contest. You cannot vote for the White Hat without "sacrificing" the vote you would have otherwise used to fend of an election of the Black Hat. So you will just never get to vote for a White Hat, an thus anything like a third party is out of the question.

I will now provide the solution (which definitely is not IRV -- unlike IRV it does not demand that all information from every ballot must be gathered into one central counting location, and it only requires simple addition -- it is intrinsically very simple. It requires three consecutive runoffs, but if we can ask people to fight and die in Iraq for years, we can surely ask them to vote three times. Besides, it provides a deliberative process, and an opportunity for participation, instead of a mere ritual.

Consecutive Approval Voting ---

Round one of a Consecutive Approval Voting election is an approval, not a plurality method election. Therefor, each voter gets to give just one vote to each candidate that she or he "approves of" (finds acceptable) up to twenty choices (so wacky people don't list thousands of candidates out of a phone book). From start to finish, parties are only advocacy networks; this voting system is "blind" to parties. So there can be no negotiating. Now, for example, Intelligent Greens will vote for some Democrats, as well as some greens. And intelligent Democrats will vote for some Greens, as well as some Democrats. So some Democrats and/or some greens will undoubtedly get a very high percentage of the maximum possible vote. Given a modicum of intelligence on the part of the voters, some Republicans would possibly get up to 40% of the maximum possible vote. Now, the eight candidates who garner the most votes get to go to a second round.

The second round is again, an approval contest between the eight remaining contenders. No negotiation between parties is allowed. Each voter can give exactly one vote to each of the eight remaining contenders that she or he "approves of" (finds acceptable). Once again the votes are added up, and the two candidates who have received the most votes go to the final round.

The final round is between only the two remaining contenders, and there will be no third candidate to act as a "spoiler," So, the Black Hat, or "spoiler" syndrome is eliminated. If the voters have half the sense they were born with, 95% of the Republicans will be eliminated as well.

by blues on 12/01/2006 06:28:28 AM EST

Breaking the Two-Party Stranglehold | 1 comment (1 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
 Display: