Third Parties as a Political Issue
In the comments of Temple's recent post, Kelly brings up a fascinating point -- approaching the need for a third-party not as a protest vote or a send-a-message vote, but instead as an important issue worth fighting for. And if a contingent of third parties got together to fight for it, the issue could get some serious attention. Imagine if the Greens and the Libertarians agreed on a method to reform and/or change the voting system that would allow Americans to support third-parties without adversely shifting the weight of the election.
In this country, we still have crooked elections. Changing the voting system means changing the medium with which the major political parties ensure their power. It's may be a tough road, but a unique approach to the issue -- taking the issue out of the realm of political aspirations and putting it in terms of what more options mean for citizens. Now if we can only figure out a way to do it that works and can be explained to Americans.
Kelly suggests fusion voting. It seems like a fantastic idea, but I have my doubts. For one thing, American third parties wouldn't buy it. Third parties tend to exist precisely because they feel that both major parties have left the country in the breach -- fusion would mean defeating some of the competitiveness that those in fringe politics feed on like succulent pit-roasted toddlers.
More notably, though, fusion voting would encourage major parties to set up dummy political parties that prop up their own candidates, splitting their signatures across as many parties as possible, earning more and more real estate on the ballot. Similar problems can occur in a borda voting; more weight given to either side in real estate favors the voting in that direction, leaving no balance for the results to be truly accurate of the populace's wishes.
What I've always been interested in is Condorcet voting. Voters make a series of rankings comparing different sets of the candidates. It would measure the needs and wishes of the populace more accurately and favor candidates based on the political leanings of the electorate instead of which side is simply on the ballot more.
Unfortunately, Condorcet makes for a lot of math to understand it and requires a tiny, tiny bit of math to actually vote. Plus, voting would take much longer to do, leaving you in the booth while you make each set of person-to-person comparisons. This would infuriate many people and make turnouts even lower.
Not to mention, if there were an interface where the voting machine leads you through the process step-by-step, the machine would probably be manufactured by Diebold, and that'll get us nowhere.
No matter which way is deemed the best, it seems to me that fighting for the third-party as a cause and not a candidate could get a lot of attention.
3 Comments:
We're getting closer. I disagree, Kelly, that it's a waste of time to search out a new party. Not so much because i long to find the candidate of the moment and defiantly switch allegiances, but because waiting a couple of years isn't going to work. There are midterm elections, there are local elections, and there are local issues. As we've seen, beginning to ramp up when the election's in sight isn't the most effective way to work.
I'm aware of the Fusion voting you pointed out, but actually I agree with Arlo about its utility and risk of penetration. Me, I'm a fan of IRV (Instant runoff)...mathematically simpler (and thus easier to explain) than condorcet and far more "democratic" than other options....of course, all forms of voting are susceptible to corruption when voting machine maufacturers and secretaries of state are not held accountable...and the fact that that has neither changed nor been reasonably challenged for over 4 years running now is further evidence that the democratic party needs to be dismissed.
And yes, local is indeed the first place to start. Condescending digs about utility and futility aside, i am in fact looking into how to help work that out in Oregon...and I feel that finding a party that supports the same ideals, while also working with individual activist groups whose membership may or may not share party affiliation, is the most effective way to effect change.
I agree, Arlo, that it is a political issue more than a candidate issue. You put that well. The current mother jones magazine has a couple of calls for the demorats to get organized as their cover article, and plenty of lefty academics have been making the same plea for a while now. The thing is, i firmly believe that we can't wait for the democrats to do it. And as we've seen, getting involved and trying to work with the dems only results in getting shit on. The party of the democrats needs real reform. but in its current state, it's not going to happen from the ground up--they've shown that for the last 40-60 years, depending on when you start counting. The uper ranks of the democratic parrty right now are simply a place for millionaires who prefer skiing to hunting--and it's only by taking support away from them that we will be able to replace them, or convince them to take a stand.
Our political setup right now requires a two-party system. And the system is broken. Rather than continue to slap band-aids on it, it's time to change the system. This means active, vocal third, or more, parties. This means, yes, reforming the voting system (which will only happen by starting at the local level).
I agree certainly with the local-level stuff. The Green Party, for example, can do more for its longevity by making in-roads in regional government. Once cities start improving (hypothetically) from Green rule, then larger constituencies will pay attention.
Yes, condorcet is much more difficult to explain to the general populace, but it doesn't have the statistical problems that instant runoff has.
Keep us all posted on your activities, Temple. I look forward to hearing about the work you do.
The reason I continue to be in favor of IRV, despite the problems with it, is that we're a nation of idiots...and IRV is simpler to explain, simpler to work with. When we do finally get to a point where a third (or more) party is a real possibility, there are a number of ways to work with that--from wide-scale organization to changing the system to fit as we go along. Our political system is a living, changing thing--and we have much work to do to bring it up to date...and then of course once we do, we'll need to keep developing it. It's a much broader, difficult change to effect than even just "getting our guy in." Rejecting a system because once it's a success it won't be a success anymore...leaves us where we are now...and if it's used as a stepping stone to continued, broader change--all the better.
To sidestep entirely, another way to think about this is that I/we aren't so much in search of a third party as of a true second party....I don't like this argument because i'm really all ofr full-scale system change. but realistically--the differences b/w Dem and Rep are so slim as to make them, and their leaders, nearly indiscernible from one another. IRV, or really any of the different systems with the probable exception of fusion, would likely serve to help make this evident.
Post a Comment
<< Home