Talk of change or more of the same?
Nov 6th, 2008 | By Ian Bushfield | Category: FeatureThere’s a lot of hope and excitement in the (more progressive) USA right now. Except of course at Pharyngula.
Bitter ol’ PZ Myers (I know the man’s not truly bitter) wrote a couple of posts since the election of Barack Obama, which “pissed in peoples corn flakes.” He’s written (emphasis mine):
Obama is a conservative/centrist Democrat who will at best implement a small shift in American policies — he hasn’t promised any strong change in Iraq, and his health care plans are an incremental improvement over the existing situation.
…
We’re still afflicted with the curse of religiosity as a political prerequisite, and Obama has strengthened it. That is a poison that will harm us over the long term; we may have made the more rational choice in this one election, but reinforcing the potency of irrationality will come back to bite us over and over again.
I dread the possibility that jubilation will lead to complacency, that moderation will produce stasis, and that what will follow an Obama presidency could be something far, far worse than we can imagine.
I should also add, before everyone condemns this as simply the act of a primitive society, that the same impulse is at work right here in America. Those people who voted yes on Proposition 8 in California were simply performing a slightly more civilized version of casting a stone at those who offend their moral and religious sense of propriety.
Honestly, I can say I fully agree.
When I look at Obama versus McCain (pre-election, not tied to Palin), I didn’t see progressive leftism versus regressive conservatism. I saw a right to center-right candidate and a right-wing candidate.
I would not vote for either candidate if they were running here in Canada.
The problem, as I see it, is that American democracy has been stolen, not just by the Republicans, but by the Democrats and the Republicans.
By some major scam, the two main parties in the USA have convinced nearly everyone in the country (including the third parties) that “a vote for a third party is a wasted vote.” The Democrats blame Nader for costing Gore the election in 2000 (think about the rationality of chastising someone for trying to represent another voice on the stage, and try to reconcile that with the ideals of “rule by the people”) and the Republicans are such a mixed bag of Christian fundamentalists, big businesses, and libertarians that I’m surprised they haven’t killed each other yet.
Yet, despite their disdain for each other, neither party would admit that the American electoral system is deeply flawed.
Why would anyone want more than two choices for government, one might ask? Doesn’t having two parties make it as simple as a governing party and an opposition, and when one doesn’t work, you can vote for the other? (I have actually heard these questions from Conservative Albertans).
This of course makes as much sense as on the Simpsons when Kang and Kodos take control of the US and put each other as the nominees, or Futurama when John Jackson and Jack Johnson run against each other. The essence of the satire is that with only two choices, they tend to become nearly the same politically in order to appeal to the widest demographic. Why do you think American landslides occur when one party gets more than 55% of the popular vote?
So how do you fix this problem?
First, with the Democrats in power, Obama needs to prove his commitment to democracy by capping all election spending, and not at the ridiculous amount he raised and spent, but at something that’s reasonable for a popular (but as of yet unelectable) third party can have an equal chance of getting it’s message out. Election ads can then also be given equal time on the major networks (for all parties, not just the two main ones). This won’t happen, of course, because he’s got power now and won it through raising ridiculous amounts of money. I’d like to be wrong here, but I’m not holding my breath.
Second, strong third party candidates should be included in the televised debates. Canada put Elizabeth May, Green Party leader, on the federal leaders debate (bringing the number of leaders present at the debate to five), and America could follow suit. Having Nader and Barr at the leader’s debate would definitely have rallied their respective supporters and given them realistic chances at least a few college votes.
Third, stop letting partisan companies put electronic voting machines in. Create a federal election overseeing board and ensure some standard. Make sure that this standard can’t be violated by Republicans, Democrats, or anyone. It’s not hard, but it stops things like 2000 in Florida. I think the issue is Americans need to learn that sometimes government isn’t bad.
Finally, although I’m not familiar enough with it, the electoral college system likely needs to be revamped. I’m not sure if this system is still valuable to American democracy, and perhaps change would be for the better.
So in conlcusion, I’m not saying that Canada has a great electoral system (we don’t), but I feel sorry for American voters who had to choose between two candidates who are forced to pander to get as many votes as possible. Take the momentum you have, America, and push for some electoral reform.
But then again, I’m not American, so you don’t have to take my advice.
Last 5 posts by Ian Bushfield
- What’s happening in Canada? - December 4th, 2008
- More reassuring news on Obama - November 10th, 2008
- A skeptical White House? - November 9th, 2008
- Apply science to colloquialisms - November 4th, 2008
- Secular convocation vs fundie radio - October 25th, 2008
Loading ...
There is an important structural reason for convergence onto a two-party system: Duverger’s Law. It was discovered by French sociologist Maurice Duverger, who noted it in the 1950’s and 1960’s. It happens because in a plurality or first-past-the-post system with single-member districts, many people are unwilling to waste their votes on candidates that seem unlikely to win. Thus, they end up voting for one of the two biggest ones, which usually leads to there being two big parties.
This is why third-party candidates are often derided as “spoilers”; they get perceived as taking votes away from the lesser of the two big-party evils, thus allowing the greater of them to win. Infamous spoiler candidates or possible spoiler candidates: John Anderson in 1980, Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996, Ralph Nader in 2000.
However, there is nothing in the US Constitution that mandates first-past-the-post; it’s all in various election laws, which can be changed. A state can decide that its Representatives and Senators are to be elected by some alternative to first-past-the-post, like preference voting or proportional representation.
[Reply]
Ian Bushfield Reply:
November 7th, 2008 at 12:49 am
Why not abolish the electoral college system and have the federal government run each state’s election? They can implement STV, PR or any other number of electoral systems which are more fair.
It’s an interesting idea that pluralities lead to two-party states, but that doesn’t make it more democratic or representative of the actual public’s desire.
And remember: I live in Canada, one of the exceptions to that Law (with the NDP and Bloc existing as major third-parties).
[Reply]
Loren Petrich Reply:
November 7th, 2008 at 2:17 am
Regional parties are a major source of exceptions; I doubt that the Bloc Québécois has much appeal outside of Quebec.
As to getting rid of the Electoral College, that would require amending the Constitution, which would be difficult to get support for. Instead, some states are proposing an end run around it, the National Popular Vote initiative:
http://www.nationalpopularvote.org
If enough states agree, they will give their electoral votes to whichever party wins the popular vote.
[Reply]
Ian Bushfield Reply:
November 7th, 2008 at 3:25 am
Ironically, I think the Bloc could get support here in Alberta, but they don’t field candidates outside of Quebec, so they never will get any support.
The NPV looks interesting, I’m glad there’s organizations fighting for reform.
[Reply]
Sometimes I feel that the US is suffering from a dogmatic acceptance that they are the most democratic country in the world, along with worshiping of the Constitution as a sacred document and its framers as infallible prophets. Therefore I have strong doubts that the notion that the US could learn a thing or two from Canada or Europe about democracy is going to be popular anytime soon.
But even more problematic is that it is in neither of the two parties’ interest to change the system. Inevitably, reforming the system to allow more parties in is going to mean that the existing parties loose influence. Even the party that is currently not in power would be reluctant to change the system, since it lessens the chances that they in the future will regain power.
By the way, I think a split of an existing party would be a more likely way to change to a many-party system than introducing a new party. The difficulties of a new party establishing itself are well known, but a party that split off from a bigger party could at least count on a certain number of followers and some financial support going with them.
I have recently been pondering whether the Republican party, after the elections ended in such a disaster to them, could decide to split into two parties: a moderate, fiscal conservative party, and a right-wing (Christian) social conservative party. After all, we’ve seen a lot of polarization within the GOP lately between these two groups, and it’s arguable that this in part lead a lot of people to vote for the Democrats this time around. It’s hard to see what would bind these groups together in the first place, just on the basis of ideology alone.
However, I think that this split is not likely to happen, because it means that each half could never again defeat the Democrats, and they know it. Even if such a split would happen, it seems likely that it’s only going to be temporary. The smallest of the two new parties would likely empty out into the larger, possibly accommodated by the larger part giving lip service to the ideals of the other group to bring them back into the fold. Or, if the moderate party is the smaller part, it will likely lose many members to the Democrats.
Of course, a similar issue is going on in the Democratic party, which appears to have a centrist subgroup and a subgroup that is more clearly left-wing, leaning towards socialism (they just can’t use that term or they’d upset the centrists). We haven’t seen too much polarization there recently, though. It is therefore even more unlikely that the Democrat party will split.
So while I have some hope that Obama will make changes for the better within the system, I am reasonably sure he will not actually change the system itself - the dynamics of the two party system strongly resists this.
[Reply]
Until we get Condorcet or instant runoff election methods in place, a vote for a third party, when polls show that third party has no chance of winning, is a wasted vote. Our one-man one-vote for only one candidate mathematically enforces a two party system. It allows the voter to specify information about only one candidate and requires that a voter abstain from expressing information in his vote about preferences among candidates for which he does not vote.
That is the central flaw in our election method, and until it is fixed, there will only in extremely rare and exceptional circumstances be viable third party candidates.
Complaints that people think a third party vote is wasted that do not also mention election methods which would fix the problem just piss me right off.
[Reply]
Beowulff Reply:
November 7th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
I doubt the “one man, one vote” system is the problem in itself. I think it’s also wrong to focus just on the presidential elections when you want to understand why there is a two party system. One man one vote works perfectly fine for presidential elections when there exist more than two parties of considerable size that can produce viable candidates, although instant runoff etc. may still be desirable.
But the other way around, simply introducing instant runoff voting or other alternative systems for the presidential election won’t guarantee that you can escape a two-party system. You still need to have more than two political parties that are capable of producing viable candidates and can afford to back them up in campaigning. If not, at most, you’d end up with introducing the possibility of electing a President who has no fellow party members in Congress or in the Senate.
Instead, you really should change how Congress and the Senate is elected as well.
Currently, suppose a new party is founded in the US with national ambitions, and they’d like to get a presence in Congress. They’ll probably start out with little funding for advertising and campaigning, but suppose that by campaigning really hard they manage to get 10% of the popular vote nation-wide. In that case, it is not unlikely that they’d still get no seats in Congress, because in each district, people running for the major two parties will likely get the majorities. If there are districts where support for this new party is highly concentrated, maybe they could get one or two seats in Congress, but it is not likely. That’s not worth the investment. Even with one or two seats in Congress, it’s not likely that any backers will renew their commitment for next election season, or at the very least, not likely they’ll expand their backing. And spending the amount of money needed to found a new party so that it immediately could get a majority of votes in a large number of districts is simply not realistic.
However, in a system with proportional representation, as a counter-example, a party that managed to get 10% of the popular vote would actually get 10% of the seats. This is a good foothold to start with, and a decent return of investment. Then, that party can start working on increasing their national presence. Their Congressmen could get known to the general public for their standpoints on important matters of policies, for instance. Next election, they may even have someone among them that has earned enough respect to be a viable candidate for the presidency. It’s not inconceivable that, if they did well in their first term, in the next election their financial support could increase and their popular vote could grow. Of course, they would have more competition, because what one party did, others can do too. But hey, isn’t the common attitude in the US that competition is good? Some more competition in the political marketplace wouldn’t hurt at all, IMHO.
[Reply]
For discussion
1. Preferential Voting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_voting. Exists mainly in Australia.
Allows a voter to vote for any candidate and if their candidate is not in the final running (last two) their vote is NOT wasted. Also means the final two candidates have a measurable preferred vote split that is out of 100 ie a winner can have a preferred vote share of 76% even though they only garnered 60% of the primary vote. The loser would have had a preferred vote share of 24%.
2. “federal election overseeing board and ensure some standard”. For example, the independant Australian Electoral Commission oversees ALL aspects of elections including electoral boundaries which I’m told get changed by US politicians after elections to benefit themselves.
There are many good and bad points about every democracy, pity its so hard to change(improve) most of them.
[Reply]
Ian Bushfield Reply:
November 9th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
#2 - In Canada we have Elections Canada (for federal elections). It is run by an appointee who usually stays in charge for 5-10 years. It’s not perfect, but it is at arms length from the government.
[Reply]
Ian, could you explain this post ” More reassuring news on Obama - November 10th, 2008″ in light of today’s post ?
[Reply]
Ian Bushfield Reply:
November 13th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
#1 this post is older and not “todays.” #2 just because theres some good news about Obama (likely overturns of Bush policies), doesn’t mean we should still be watchful of him. #3 I still think the US needs a better electoral system.
[Reply]