I want a political party that represents my views. Like many Oregonians, Washingtonians, and a growing number of Americans, I’m not a Democrat, and I’m not a Republican.
Independents—people who don’t identify with one of the two major parties—are the biggest and fastest-growing group of US voters. At last count, 40 percent of Americans considered themselves independent. The same is true in Cascadia: in Washington, an estimated 44 percent of registered voters identify as independent; in Oregon, one-third of registered voters are not registered Democrat or Republican. The trend is even more stark among younger Americans: nearly half of millennials consider themselves independent.
Yet Cascadians who live in the United States are continually shoe-horned into the two major parties because, like Richard Gere in An Officer and a Gentleman, we’ve got nowhere else to go.
More parties would better represent voters’ views
The growing number of Americans who don’t identify with either major party and the surprising popularity of party-outsiders Sanders and Trump indicate Americans want options outside the two major parties. Two parties can adequately represent people’s views along a single axis, but when views bifurcate along two different axes, two parties cannot reflect the diversity of political views. American voters span a spectrum from progressive to conservative on a left-right cultural axis, and they span a spectrum from elitist* to populist on an up-down economic axis.
Using data from the Pew Research Center’s 2014 Political Typology Report, I charted seven of Pew’s political typologies left to right—progressive to conservative—and top to bottom—economic elitist to economic populist. (See the Methodology section at the end of this article for details.)
This two-axis analysis suggested several points:
- Culturally conservative and economically elitist Americans, the “Business Conservatives” in the upper right quadrant, feel at home in the Republican party. However, business elites are worried that rising populist sentiments may hurt their bottom line, and the elitist GOP establishment is horrified that an uncouth populist like Trump is laying claim to its party banner.
- Culturally conservative and economically populist voters, the “Steadfast Conservatives” in the lower right quadrant, are relatively satisfied with the Republican party’s cultural conservatism but may feel alienated from the Republican party’s elitist economic policies. It follows that many of these voters are thrilled to hear Trump trumpet a culturally conservative worldview while also expressing populist economic messages, like limiting free trade and spending taxpayer dollars solving problems at home—not playing world police. Many Trump supporters also favor increasing taxes on the wealthy.
- Culturally moderate and economically populist voters, the “Young Outsiders” and the “Hard-Pressed Skeptics” in the lower middle quadrant, are dissatisfied with both parties, possibly because both parties are too focused on cultural issues rather than economic populism. Many of these voters are delighted to hear Sanders hammer on wealth inequality, financial access to college, a living wage, limiting free trade, and solving economic problems at home rather than paying to play world police.
- Culturally progressive and economically moderate Americans—“Faith and Family Left,” “Next Generation Left,” and “Solid Liberals” in lower left quadrant—feel pretty happy with the Democratic party. But the Democratic establishment is uncomfortable with Sanders’ strident populism.
For the parties to maintain control of their banners and for more voters to see candidates they can get excited about, the United States needs parties that represent more of this diversity of views.
Winner-take-all voting suppresses third parties
The United States’ archaic winner-take-all voting system allows the candidate with the most votes to win the whole election, even if he or she does not win a majority of the votes. Third-party candidates are almost always doomed to fail, either to become “spoilers” who hand the election to the less popular of the two major party candidates (Nader spoiled it for Gore, Perot spoiled it for Bush) or else to get weeded out in top-two primaries like Washington’s.
The popularity of party-outsiders Sanders and Trump shows voters are looking for views outside the two major parties’ orthodoxies.
Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump understand the constraints of the winner-take-all system. Sanders, an Independent-Socialist-Democrat, and Trump, an Independent-Democrat-unaffiliated-Republican, figured the odds of successfully infiltrating a major party’s primaries were higher than the odds of successfully running as third-party candidates. The popularity of party-outsiders Sanders and Trump shows voters are looking for views outside the two major parties’ orthodoxies. But when the voting system works against third parties, third-party candidates can’t win, third parties can’t grow, and voters who prefer third parties can’t vote their conscience without feeling like they are throwing away their votes.
Many Oregonians (including yours truly) are members of the Independent Party of Oregon: enough of us that the state awarded us major party status last year. But despite our numbers, winner-take-all voting prevents independents from winning elections in part because voters are afraid to spoil the election for their preferred Democrat or Republican candidate. Practicality propels us to keep voting for the Democrat or the Republican. Independent voters are barred from even voting in May’s closed presidential primaries unless we defect and register as Democrats or Republicans.
In most stable Western democracies, Sanders and Trump wouldn’t have to foist themselves on hostile parties; they could just run on their own parties’ platforms. Simple. Most Western democracies use a form of voting that enables three or four viable parties. Of the 34 OECD countries, only the United Kingdom and its former colonies Canada and the United States still use winner-take-all voting—an eighteenth-century system that enables two parties to disproportionately dominate elections. Almost all other prosperous democracies use some form of proportional representation—a twentieth-century voting systems that enable multiple parties to accurately represent voters’ views.
Yet even there, the wildly unrepresentative 2015 UK election results stirred calls for adopting a more modern voting system, and Canada has vowed that 2015 will be the last first-past-the-post election it ever holds. In 1996, New Zealand broke its eighteenth-century English winner-take-all voting bondage and adopted twentieth-century proportional representation voting, immediately adding several viable parties and making the legislature represent the full range of voters.
It is time for the United States to join the civilized world and shed its archaic voting system. The Cascadian parts of the country, especially Oregon and Washington, could lead the way, as I will detail in my next article.
Find out how trump is winning—even though most Republicans aren't voting for him.
Proportional representation voting enables multiple parties
Robert Reich envisions rising economic populism manifesting itself as a new “People’s Party.” While he is right that many people on both sides of the left-right divide are desperate for more economically populist candidates, he is, sadly, wrong that America will create a viable additional party just because lots of people really, really want one (or two).
If really wanting were enough, the United States would have created more viable parties during the Progressive Era. If wanting were enough, Ross Perot’s Reform Party would still be around. The paucity of parties stems not from a lack of interest but from a lack of a modern voting system. Until the United States updates how it votes, American voters will only have two viable options on their ballots, no matter how many people click their heels and wish it weren’t so.
By design, winner-take-all voting disproportionately advantages two major parties, while proportional representation voting empowers parties in proportion to how many voters their platforms actually represent.
The example of New Zealand
New Zealand used winner-take-all voting for most of the twentieth century, and two major parties, National (conservative) and Labor (progressive), consistently won almost all the seats. Since switching to proportional representation in 1996, the Green Party (progressive, environmental), the New Zealand First Party (centrist, populist, nationalist), and the Maori Party (representing indigenous people) have gained seats in Parliament proportional to the number of voters who support them (12 percent, 9 percent, and 2 percent, respectively).
The example of Canada
In Canada, thirteen commissions, assemblies, and reports over the years recommended proportional representation. But Canada continued to suffer disproportional elections: Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party ruled for nearly a decade even though only a plurality of voters (36 to 40 percent) voted for the Conservative Party. Conservatives formed a minority government with 36.3 percent of the votes in 2006, but won a majority 53.9 percent of the legislative seats in 2011 with just 39.6 percent of the votes.
In 2015, the Liberal Party and the progressive New Democratic Party (NDP) both campaigned on the promise to abolish first-past-the-post voting. The Liberal Party swept to power with 54.4 percent of the seats (but only 39.5 percent of the vote), while the NDP won 13 percent of the seats (with 19.7 percent of the vote). The Liberal Party favors instant runoff voting (IRV), likely because it might let Liberals continue to win close to a majority of seats. The NDP favors proportional representation (specifically, a form called Mixed Member Proportional).
Prime Minister Trudeau has promised to form a multi-party committee to explore the question of which voting system is best. The NDP recommended that, in keeping with the spirit of the exercise, committee membership should be proportional to the parties’ share of the vote in fall 2015: five Liberals, three Conservatives, two New Democrats, one Bloc Quebecois, and one Green.
The US opportunity
In the United States, hardly anyone even talks about the benefits of proportional representation. In 1967, the US Congress mandated single-member districts, foreclosing proportional representation at the federal level. Good news: there are no Constitutional barriers to repealing this law and replacing it with something like the Fair Representation Act. Bad news: passing such an act through Congress will be a hard slog. As with most important changes in the United States, national reform is a long road that starts with the states.
States can experiment and spread success. Oregon and Washington could implement proportional representation in state legislatures. As more states follow suit, a bevy of benefits would compound: more voters would gain experience electing representatives through proportional voting, viable parties would gain ground, Sanders and Trump supporters would grow accustomed to electing like-minded representatives at the state level, and Congress would feel the pressure to adopt, or at least allow, proportional voting at the national level. States could make the first inroads into reforming federal elections by creating an interstate compact for fair representation and taking it to Congress asking for permission.
Want more? Kristin explains proportional representation with fruits and veggies.
Proportional representation could also boost civic engagement, cripple gerrymandering, and end partisan gridlock
I am not constructing an elaborate ruse to bolster my pet political party. I am advocating to improve democracy in Cascadia so that Cascadians can make progress towards sustainability. Updating the US voting system to one that empowers more than two major parties would not only give me, other independents, and Sanders and Trump supporters a political home; it would convey copious other benefits.
As I have previously described in greater detail, winner-take-all voting yields negative campaigns that turn off voters. Because a candidate can win by gaining more support than the other guy, but not necessarily majority support, smearing an opponent, or even sullying the whole election process so that voters simply stay home on election day, can be a successful strategy. When voters have the option to more fully express their preferences because they can rank candidates or choose a party that more closely aligns with their views, candidates and parties are motivated to attract voters to their ideas, not to repel voters from their opponents or from participating in civic life at all.
Proportional representation voting encourages voters by ensuring that every vote counts.
In addition to encouraging negative campaigns, winner-take-all voting also discourages voters with disproportionate or unrepresentative election results. What’s the point in voting when you can never actually elect someone who represents your views? Voters who prefer third-party candidates, conservative voters who live in urban areas, and progressive voters who live in rural areas face this disheartening situation every election: if you don’t agree with the plurality of voters in your district then your vote doesn’t matter. Proportional representation voting encourages voters by ensuring that every vote counts. Conservatives, progressives, and third-party enthusiasts can all elect legislators in proportion to their strength at the ballot box.
A winner-take-all system also fuels the gerrymandering blight that plagues the United States. Gerrymandering can only exist when single-winner districts lines can be drawn around a particular demographic of voters. With proportional representation, it doesn’t matter who draws the district lines, because districts are multi-winner or are balanced by a regional or statewide vote that ensures proportional results no matter how or by whom the districts are drawn.
Winner-take-all voting and the resulting two dominant parties also jam the system with partisan gridlock. The two-party system often rewards legislators for being obstructionist and punishes them for forming inter-party alliances to get things done. With more parties, obstructionists would become irrelevant to the art of governing, which would be carried out by skilled deal-makers. For example, imagine the United States added two additional parties—a conservative populist party that would occupy the political space around where the “Steadfast Republicans” are located in the graph above, and a moderate-progressive populist party near the “Hard-Pressed Skeptics” and “Young Outsiders.” A single party could no longer shut down public functions by taking its toys and going home. The other three parties would work out solutions and ignore the obstructionists. The two populist parties and the Democrats might come together to bolster Social Security and install Universal Health Care. Or they might draw enough support from the Democrats and Republicans to ensure trade agreements include protections for the American middle class.
The question of governmental effectiveness
Conventional wisdom in the United States says that, while a multi-party system might be more representative of the people, additional accuracy comes at the cost of governmental effectiveness. In a two-party system, the thinking goes, the party in charge can get things done, but in a multi-party system the small factions would be constantly fighting and never accomplish anything. If Congress is gridlocked now with two parties, just imagine what it would be like with three or four!
Researcher Arend Lijphart conducted an exhaustive international study and found that multi-party systems are more effective at governing, maintaining rule of law, controlling corruption, reducing violence, and managing the economy—particularly minimizing inflation and unemployment while managing the economic pressures arising from economic globalization. His conclusion boils down to: good management requires a steady hand more than a strong hand. Two-party systems provide more of the latter with a strong, decisive, government, while more representative multi-party democracies provide more of the former with steady governance.
The party in charge in a two-party system can make decisions faster, but once the other party gains control it often abruptly reverses course, throwing things into disarray. And the ruling party often has a hard time implementing decisions that they made over the vehement objections of important sectors of society, since those sectors continue to oppose the outcome at every turn. A multi-party government may take longer to form the consensus needed to make a decision, but once made, decisions are durable, implementable, and not at constant risk of being overturned.
Conclusion
A representative democracy means voters elect representatives who share their values, beliefs, and priorities. With more than one set of issues at stake, two political parties cannot possibly field candidates who reflect the different permutations of voters. The growing number of independent voters and the Sanders and Trump insurgencies demonstrate voters’ discontent with the deficient representation that two major parties can offer. So while outsiders like Sanders and Trump may never win a single-winner seat like the presidency, with proportional voting, the many voters rallying to the Sanders and Trump flags could elect legislators in proportion to their numbers.
Next time, I’ll tell you how Oregon and Washington could take the hint and forge a path towards adopting modern voting systems that facilitate more representative democracies.
*I use the term “elitist” for lack of a better term: it represents a preference for policies that benefit the economic elite, including corporations, financial institutions, and the wealthy. Economic elitists tend to oppose policies that distribute economic benefits to working- or middle-class people, like Social Security, taxes on wealth or capital gains, limits on “free trade” to protect domestic blue-collar jobs at the expense of corporate profit, and prioritizing domestic spending that may benefit Americans broadly over international interventions that may benefit corporations.
Methodology for Two-Axis Graph
For nearly three decades, the Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan research center, has conducted research to understand the nuances of Americans’ political ideologies. The latest iteration of its research efforts, based on a large survey and follow-up interviews conducted in 2014, identified eight political typologies, seven of which are at least somewhat politically engaged. (“Bystanders,” the eighth typology, aren’t registered to vote and don’t follow politics.)
Defining the left-right axis
The left and right split on the question: should we welcome cultural changes, or should we honor traditional or historical values? (An informal litmus test: if you think it is super-cool that the new “Star Wars” protagonists are a woman and a black man, you are probably culturally progressive; if you feel uncomfortable with the change in casting, you are likely culturally conservative.)
Other research confirms the change-v-tradition divide closely tracks the left-right, Democrat-Republican, and urban-rural divide. Most progressives choose to live in dense, ethnically diverse cities where they are exposed to cultural differences; most conservatives choose to live in rural areas or small towns where most neighbors stick to traditional lifestyles.
To calculate each typology’s left-right placement, I used three Pew survey questions that seemed to address the change-v-tradition divide. Respondents chose one of the two options in each question below.
- In your view, has this country been successful more because of its ability to change OR more because of its reliance on long-standing principles?
- Should the U.S. Supreme Court base its rulings on its understanding of what the U.S. Constitution meant as it was originally written, OR should the court base its rulings on its understanding of what the U.S. Constitution means in current times?
- What do you think is more important – to protect the right of Americans to own guns, OR to control gun ownership?
I subtracted each typology’s average agreement with the welcome cultural change type option from the average agreement with the honor traditional values type option and found the average. Higher numbers placed that group further to the right, and more negative numbers place them further to the left.
The three Democratic-affiliated typologies (Solid Liberals, Faith & Family Left, Next Generation Left) all welcome cultural changes, saying that the United States has been successful because of its ability to change, that judges should interpret the US Constitution as appropriate for current times, and that it is important to control gun ownership. The two Republican-affiliated typologies (Business Conservatives and Steadfast Conservatives) both honor traditional or historical cultural values, agreeing with the statements that US success is due to reliance on long-standing principles, that judges should interpret the Constitution as originally written, and that it is important to protect the right to bear arms. The two moderate or culturally ambivalent groups (Hard-Pressed Skeptics and Young Outsiders) are mostly evenly split on these questions.
Note: Left and right often correlate with religious views, but not always. For example, Faith & Family Left are religious Democrats who oppose same-sex marriage and don’t believe in evolution. Affluent, educated Business Conservatives are staunch Republicans who believe in evolution and have mixed views on same-sex marriage. Young Outsiders lean Republican but support same-sex marriage and abortions and believe in evolution. Democratic-leaning Hard-Pressed Skeptics are slightly opposed to same-sex marriage and lean towards making abortions illegal.
Defining the up-down axis
To separate economic elitism from economic populism, I used four of Pew’s questions that addressed whether the government and the economy should cater to the interests of economic elites such as the wealthy and corporations, or spread wealth widely, protect domestic jobs, and solve domestic economic problems. Unfortunately, Pew did not ask respondents about wealth inequality or tax reform, so I used these four Pew questions:
- Which comes closer to your view: The economic system in this country unfairly favors powerful interests OR The economic system in this country is generally fair to most Americans?
- Thinking about the long term future of Social Security, do you think some reductions in benefits for future retirees need to be considered OR Social Security benefits should not be reduced in any way?
- Which comes closer to your view: It’s best for the future of our country to be active in world affairs OR We should pay less attention to problems overseas and concentrate on problems here at home?
- In general, do you think that free trade agreements between the U.S. and other countries have been a good thing OR a bad thing for the United States?
As above, I subtracted each group’s level of agreement with the more populist position from their level of agreement with the more elitist opinion and took the average. Higher numbers placed the group higher up, and negative numbers placed them lower.
The 10 percent of Americans Pew identifies as “Business Conservatives” are probably most closely aligned with GOP economic views but stand almost alone among Americans on economic issues. Business Conservatives believe the economic system is generally fair to most Americans; every other group believes the economic system unfairly favors powerful interests. Business Conservatives believe the US should consider cuts to Social Security benefits; every other group agrees that Social Security benefits should not be reduced in any way; solidly Republican Steadfast Conservatives support Social Security every bit as much as Solid Liberals, and Republican-leaning “Young Outsiders” support it even more vehemently than Solid Liberals. Business Conservatives strongly believe the US should be active in world affairs, whereas Hard-Pressed Skeptics and Young Outsiders fervently believe, and Steadfast Conservatives strongly believe, the US should concentrate on solving problems at home. Business Conservatives are also at odds with Steadfast Conservatives on free trade: the former support free trade, and the latter oppose.
Note: Immigration is often cast as a cultural issue (opposition to cultural changes that immigrants bring), but it also has an economic dimension. More competition can drive down wages, so the US Chamber of Commerce supports immigration reform while blue-collar Americans often it. Put the two together and it is no surprise that culturally conservative and economically populist Steadfast Conservatives are more likely to oppose illegal immigration than any other group.
Rob Harris
The Indepependent Party of Oregon has also concluded that perhaps it’s primary goal needs to be the fundamental change of our election process. It’s a tall order of course, since the Democratic and Republican elected officials have no interest in empowering all voters.
Krist Novoselic
Rob,
You might know that Ranked Choice Voting, a form of proportional representation, is in the Oregon Constitution.
Stephen
Multiparty would be better for letting people vote for a party that aligns with their wishes, while 2-party systems usually cause the parties to try to be sane and centrist … if the primaries are representative enough. But all electoral systems have drawbacks. I’m curious how you prevent the political hijacking that often happens in multi-party systems. We’d probably get religious parties that were willing to shut down the government unless they got what they wanted, for example. I’d like to see an explanation of how we avoid a political system like Israel has; and in Europe, the far right often does better politically even with laws on the books against them thanks to their multiparty system.
I think what we might really need is someone like Sanders but a little more centrist, and someone representing the people Trump represents but with vastly more integrity and decency, to meet in an honest middle. For them to make a deal that includes both left and right, but pushes for integrity.
At some point, multi-party or two-party, we need leaders who reach across lines and work for integrity, as well as leaders that represent certain ideals with clarity. I’m not sure simple voting reform will do that.
Bob Lieberman
As much as I agree with your analysis of the problem, I would prefer you spend your time working to resolve the more urgent, and I think more fundamental, problems of voter suppression and unequal representation.
The two party system is entrenched in the US, and I think it will stay that way until one of the two parties can be coopted sufficiently to embrace a solution to those problems.
When solved, progressive voices will have more influence *within* the two party system, which is where I think the power lies.
Until that happens, third parties simply divide the progressive vote and thereby guarantee that the least progressive candidate wins, and we stay in the hole for longer. That has happened so often. A Pyrrhic victory is not helpful.
New York City, and other places, allow a candidate to gain the endorsement of more than one party. So a third party can have and sustain influence because it has its identity, stands for its ideals and programs, —> and wields its support at the ballot box.
Krist Novoselic
“In the United States, hardly anyone even talks about the benefits of proportional representation.” Except for myself, Kristen Eberhard and a few others!!!! Great article!
One of the problems with getting this message out there is how campaign finance is dominating the current discourse. Gerrymandering and partisanship are a bigger problem. Don’t think so? 9 out of 10 races for US House are locked up for one party or the other. Jamie Raskin just beat David Trone—who spent $12 million of his own money in the primary. Raskin won on the power of his message. (I supported Jamie although I live across the country.) Trones’ $12mil. hardly “bought” him an election. Same for Jeb Bush who spent heavily in the GOP nominations. Raskin is a champion of the Fair Representation Act you mention!
We should be taking about how single-member districts make elections noncompetitive. Instead, we hear about Citizens United over and over and over again. This years ballot proposition I-735 is essentially a letter to Santa Claus—what a squander of resources! I think there should be an initiative that overturns Olympia’s 1965 political decision separating state house districts into Pos. 1 and Pos 2.. Instead, all state house candidates should run under the same ballot line, like they used to. The innovative feature is voters then get one vote to elect two representatives. This is a form of semi-proportional representation known and the single non-transferable vote. Kristin mentions Arend Lijphart, who has written extensively about this system. He says it basically facilitates minority representation. In other words—it negates the effects of gerrymandering. This system is used in VRA settlements in our country and states like Connecticut and Pennsylvania use a version in their local elections.
Onward Cascadians!!!
Trevor Woolley
While I REALLY like the conclusion of the article (I too believe in proportional representation for the house and IRV for presidency and senate), I dislike the spectrum depicted. The horizontal axis would be more principly accurate if labeled “tolerance.” “Traditionality” is extremely relative to the given culture . This point is much more nuanced however. More important is the author’s misunderstanding of the economic axis. The author seems to believe the economy to be zero-sum in that the government at any given time can either help elites or the people and that taking a neutral position automatically helps the former. For instance, the economic eletism described labels corporate protectionism and the free market as the same thing. On the contrary, most economists agree on a large margin that while government protections of corporations certainly hurt the public, the free market (international trade, few licensing laws, low regulation) helps everybody and does not “help” large corporations per se. A better axis would be lasses fair v. Interventionist economics. A real free market is by no means “pro-eletist.”
A third nuanced critique is that the large libertarian population is no where depicted on the spectrum.
Kristin Eberhard
Trevor – yes, another possible axis would be the Authoritarian/Libertarian spectrum. The Political Compass uses that axis and the resulting matrix gives a much richer view of the diversity of views in the US. Looking at the Trump and Sanders insurgency, it seemed to me the thing they have in common (and different from the establishment candidates) had to do with economic populism, rather than Authoritarianism or Libertarianism.
As to my definition of economic elitism: I agree with you that competitive markets in the way economists define them are broadly beneficial. Unfortunately, when you walk across the Quad from the economics department to the Business School, future business leaders are learning something entirely different from what economists espouse. America’s corporate leaders are learning that their goal is to manufacture monopolies so they can maximize profits at the expense of captive customers. Just read Peter Thiel’s WSJ article from last year saying that competition is for losers. I did not mean to label competitive markets as elitist. I meant to label policies that help concentrate wealth in the hands of a few, at the expensive of the many, as economic elitism.
Blair Bobier
A path to modern voting is being blazed right now in Benton County, Oregon. Learn more about our Ranked Choice Voting Charter Amendment initiative at BetterBallotBenton,com.
Tyler
I would be very interested to learn why some municipalities (including Pierce County, Washington) experimented with IRV but then repealed it. Can you please address this?
Kristin Eberhard
Tyler – I plan to dig in to the Pierce County story later this year.
Brett
we need zero parties, anyone who pledges to a party is basicaly saying they dont care what is right, just what the corrupt party says.
Clif Finch
Interestingly a Russian Op-Ed in Putin’s new Sputnick News Service Yesterday called for the same thing, “U.S. Voters Should Break Free From Republican-Democrat Bipolarity.”
Amy
You’re right; that is interesting.
But, before we panic, let’s be careful of possible logical fallacies here. First, we haven’t seen how the OpEd’s reasoning compares to the reasoning of this article. (It is an opinion piece, after all…) Second, just because Russian state news political opinions are likely to be suspicious, doesn’t mean that they’re *always* wrong.
More information is needed here, I think…
RDPence
An overlooked part of this discussion is the role of primary elections. The USA is the only nation, at least to my awareness, that uses state-run primary elections to determine the parties’ candidates for public office. Every other nation allows the parties themselves to select their candidates, and if current parties are not putting up the right candidates, it’s easy enough to form a new party offering different choices.
But in the USA, because party candidates are selected by primary voters, it’s much easier to just infiltrate one of the two existing parties. Just go around the party itself and file for office by co-opting the party label. This is exactly what Bernie and Trump have done.
Primary elections were part of the reform movement around the turn of the last century. In retrospect, it would’ve been better to keep party nominations within the party apparatus, like every other democracy, and thereby encourage the emergence of new parties.
Jim Adcock
A central failing of our form of government is the false assumption that people are best categorized by where they live. Thus we are forced to vote for local candidates. I suggest that a better system of government would allow us to vote for “at large” candidates. Consider, for example, if we could vote for any two US senatorial candidates anywhere in the US. Then any of your grouping would be able to gang together and elect at least one senator to congress. Even more, consider at-large voting for US House candidates — how *that* would change America!
James Raymond
Thank for this terrific, informative article on third parties and proportional representation. It really speaks to my frustration with the WA Democratic Party Central Committee’s efforts to strangle I-732 in the crib by voting to oppose the initiative immediately after it qualified for the 2016 ballot. They did so well knowing that hundreds of thousands of WA Democrats across the state support I-732’s bipartisan, revenue-neutral carbon tax approach for reducing our greenhouse emissions, and see it as our best opportunity for fighting climate change at the ballot box this year.
I have voted for Democrats over Republicans in every election since 1976. I would, however, without hesitation vote for any Republican or Independent who came out in favor of I-732, all the way up to governor. I am far more concerned with the existential threat that climate change poses to the future of our children than I am in the existential threat that embracing a bipartisan, centrist initiative poses to the tenuous hegemony of the WSDCC over WA state politics.
westomoon
Excellent article! I have been a proponent of switching to multi-party system for many years, and agree that we are at the point where the electorate feels the same.
I just wanted to quibble with one of this piece’s minor assumptions: I always test out “Solid Liberal” on the Pew test, and yet I feel like a stranger in a strange land in the Democratic party, especially at the national level.
It has been a long time since the D party has been anywhere near liberal — its own sharp move to the right, starting with Jimmy Carter and blossoming in the neoliberal takeover by the DLC in the 90’s, has simply been disguised by the Republicans’ headlong rush to the farthest margins of extremist right-wing thinking, while excoriating as “liberal” anyone, no matter how stodgy, who is not rushing with them.
To my mind, Bernie Sanders has simply run a solid liberal campaign — he has not proposed a damn thing that FDR would not have found perfectly comfortable.
Kristin Eberhard
The Pew data indicate that most “Solid Liberals” are happy with the Democratic Party, but I think Sanders campaign success suggests that many solidly Democratic voters would prefer a more Socialist party. If we had a voting system that actually allowed such a party to compete, it would be interesting to see how many voters would support the Socialist/Sanders/FDR party and what the legislature could accomplish when those voters won effective representation.
Vernon Huffman
Delighted to know others support a conversion to a multi-party system. Please realize that we lack leverage to make this change from the top down. Start by rewriting local charters, as proposed in Benton County, Oregon.
RDPence
We should also note, at least in passing, that Washington’s “Top Two” system precludes the existence of 3rd party choices in general elections.
Jan Steinman
I favour the simplest possible system — one that can be done with paper and pencil.
In a future of diminished energy resources, we should be seeking simplicity, rather than the complexity that Joseph Tainter shows collapses civilizations.
Ranked voting can be done with pencil and paper. National-level prop rep, to my knowledge, requires complicated computer algorithms.
Besides the complexity issue, as a scrutineer for the Green Party of Canada, I feel that a “paper and pencil” system has the least susceptibility to manipulation. When the president of electronic voting-machine manufacturer Diebold says, “I will deliver Ohio” — and does! — there is something wrong with the system. Anything that relies on computers on a grand scale can be manipulated — as Volkswagen!
Judith Barnes
So very glad to receive this and to know that it may come into discussion. I believe in trying things on to see if they fit. I’d very much like to see a state or Cascadia-wide test run where we send in our ballots at the next old-WTA election, but also a well publicized, online proposed system change ballot we vote in addition as a look-see to determine how it works and what the result “could have been.” I’m confident that Bill Gates, Sr. would support this and he might have an “in” with a bunch of programmers and designers who could make it happen.
Debra Morrison
What a great article, and I can hardly wait for the next “episode”!! Thanks Kristin, for illuminating some of the many problems and SOLUTIONS for our morbid electoral processes.
Paul Cohen
While I agree with the author’s call for more political parties, I don’t think proportional representation would be easy to implement in the U.S. without major alterations of our Constitution – something that would surely be a challenge to accomplish. But there is another way that would not even require legislation by the Congress. States control the way we vote and states can change the way we vote.
There is a fundamental reason that our voting system makes it difficult for third parties to gain prominence – and many more reasons if you include the many rules and traditions that the major parties have invented to obstruct these new parties. But as a start we should focus on the fundamental problem.
The basic problem is what is usually called the “spoiler effect,” a perhaps unfortunate term since it has been often used to designate a third-party challenger as the spoiler. This has led minor party members to object – quite incorrectly – that there is no spoiler effect. But it is real and it is an almost irresistible force that causes parties to merge whenever there are three or more in serious contention. So long as a voting system is used that allows the spoiler effect, significant third parties will disappear after a few election cycles. That certainly has been the history in the U.S., though not so much in countries with Parliamentary systems.
But another fundamental problem with our voting system is the great advantage it gives to celebrity candidates. The candidate who collects the most votes in their favor wins – and starting with a widely recognized name is a big head-start in winning an election. The money that celebrities have and can collect only magnifies this advantage.
Alternative voting systems that avoid the spoiler effect have been discussed for some time. Approval Voting seems to be one of the best of these but, like the others, Approval Voting does nothing to counterbalance the advantage that celebrity candidates have.
There is, however, a family of voting systems that avoid the spoiler effect and at the same time reduce the advantage that celebrity brings to our elections. These are called “Balanced Voting Systems” and they are the subject of a series of articles that explore these other alternatives.
Tim
How might one go about petitioning for proportional representation elections in the state legislature?
Kristin Eberhard
Tim – likely, we need to get cities or counties to try proportional representation before states would adopt it. Benton County’s adoption of ranked-choice voting suggests there is some appetite for change at the local level. One of Sightline’s next tasks is identifying places that might be open to trying proportional representation.
Tim
One thing you did not address in this article is the additional burden on the voter of being more informed about more candidates. What would you say in response to this? Do you think Americans are capable of being informed about more candidates?
Kristin Eberhard
I think more parties make it easier for voters to vote for what they believe in. They only have to know four parties, not every single candidate on every single ballot. Instead of researching each individual–their background, beliefs, voting record–voters can look to parties to do the vetting for them. If they agree with a party and a party puts forward a candidate, the voter knows that candidate will work to further an agenda they agree with.
With only two parties, each is a hodge-podge of many different beliefs and agendas, leaving it to voters to sort out. Is this a Tea Party Republican or a Business Republican or a State’s Rights Republican? Is this a Bernie Sanders Democrat or a Business Democrat or a Green Democrat? If I vote for them, will they fight for a Green agenda or fall in with whatever the Democratic party is pushing? With four parties, voters could just look at the party label and know.
Tim
Wow. Didn’t think about it that way. Wonderful points and article, Kristin =)
Susan Davis
What else can there be other than winner take all? There is only one president, how do you divide votes other than winner take all?
The electoral college routine is ridiculous. It certainly doesn’t help keep younger voters interested in voting. Why bother than 400-plus people will be choosing a president.
What really needs to be done is to allow vetting of a presidential candidate. We need to glean a huge amount of information about this person to determine so many factors. There is vetting in many areas of life, time to vet the pres. We also need to put them on a work budget. I am furious seeing Trump spending so much of his time being King on Americans’ dime. My greatest concern is whose finger is on the nuclear button, and why don’t We the People have a right to seriously vet them. And they would HAVE to answer questions. No DeVos’s allowed. Back in the old days of our country, things were different. We need to realize changes are OK. And get rid of some of the dinosaurs who are in office.
al and fa ladd
America has The Constitution and Democracy,there is no need of any political party to Administer The Country and no political party mentioned in This Document to grant never ending lease to on Our Democracy and The Constitution to call their own as they do.
mark ahern
this is a great idea. can you suggest how voters in other regions might work toward the same goals? i live in texas.
glad to have come across your website and your lucid exposition of ideas!
mark ahern austin, TX