3 ms·

Woah, there are many things wrong with this. I'll limit it to the biggest two. First, it's important to understand that we (the US) have a very different politi

Woah, there are many things wrong with this. I'll limit it to the biggest two. First, it's important to understand that we (the US) have a very different political party system than many other western democracies. We have a winner take all system, where 51% of the votes gains you 100% of the voting power. This is not the usual state of affairs - in other democracies, 51% of the vote wins you 51% of the voting power. Or, more accurately, party 1 has 10% of the power, party 2 has 23% of the power, party 3 has 5% of the power, and so on. Theoretically, the two party system is meant to make government more agile and less risk averse. It is supposed to ensure a party is, temporarily, in charge and able to accomplish its political agenda. In multiparty systems, there is frequent political deadlock as parties must negotiate to literally "form a government", or get enough of an alliance between people to mobilize 51% of the voting power. If you read international press, you often hear about the "dissolution of the government" in various civilized countries. This means they've failed in maintaining or forming a coalition, and must go back to political dealings in order to (in most cases) elect a prime minister and get behind a political agenda. These multiparty systems are therefore risk averse, and theoretically worse at achieving widespread governmental action. I keep using the word "theoretical" because of our obvious governmental gridlock in the United States. But to look at things like the stimulus package and the health care bill, and it's not so clear that we're unable to pass large pieces of legislation. With no political parties, every single vote would be about political dealmaking and organizing politicians. We would never get anything done. I'm not necessarily saying we have the right system, or even a great system, just that it isn't quite so easy to say "get rid of parties". Now, to the second point. Jefferson? Puh-lease! I can't stand the frequent popular allusions to Jefferson the saint. This man was a great part of our country and one of the most important thinkers of his time. But he also wrote anti-government propaganda from the office of the vice presidency and had a near-blood fued with George Washington, John Adams, and Alexander Hamilton. Jefferson wouldn't roll over in his grave at this political language; he would be saying things far worse. If he sprang back to life today, he would suggest dissolving the federal government, abolishing any standing military, closing down capital institutions to promote an agrarian lifestyle, and letting Virginia negotiate a peace treaty with France. Let's not even talk about just what part of our society would have a real vote and which part would have 3/5 of one. I mean, can we be a little more reasonable with this founding father stuff?

protomyth 16y ago
Reason.TV did a great video about attacks during the campaign of 1800 http://reason.tv/video/show/the-negative-campaign-of-1800 http://reason.tv/video/show/the-negative-campaign-of-1800 I actually think you couldn't get away with some of that stuff today.
philwelch 16y ago
Actually, 51% of the votes might get you anywhere between ~10% to ~90% of control, based on how that 51% is distributed. In PR, if x% vote for Party X, Party X holds x% of seats simpliciter. In first past the post, it's distributed by constituency. If you win 49% in every district and 99% in the single most populous district, you get only one seat even though you got strictly more than half the vote (assuming a strict two party system). One interesting difference between the US system and the parliamentary system is how coalitions work. In one sense, US parties are themselves coalitions already. Democrats are a coalition between labor, feminists, environmentalists, minorities, leftists, civil libertarians, and various single-issue voters; Republicans are a coalition between militarists, free-marketers, right-wing Christians of all denominations, and various single-issue voters. If you're a gun-owning trade unionist, who are you going to vote for? In practice, places with a lot of gun owning trade unionists end up with pro-gun Democrats and pro-union Republicans, and then they have to dynamically form coalitions just like a parliamentary system. Likewise, you don't get huge factions of the Labour party voting against a Labour PM in Parliament unless they want to start something; whereas you do get that in the US system. There are even bipartisan coalitions, between conservative Democrats and Republicans during the Reagan years, or even single-issue coalitions across both parties (though these are diminishing--"pro-life" Democrats and "pro-choice" Republicans have become increasingly ostracized and purged from their respective parties, for instance). So in effect, the US system allows dynamic coalitions to form between individual members of Congress, while a PR-based parliamentary system (theoretically) allows dynamic coalitions to form between multitudes of small parties. (In practice, there are still pretty tight upper bounds on how many different parties you can have, for reasons best described as "brand recognition".) What's the effect? In a parliament, it's harder to form a coalition, but once formed the coalition effectively runs the table until someone decides to start over again. In the US system, every individual piece of legislation can pass or fail, and it's an errand to shove it though. Gridlock happens for two reasons: one, the US system is designed to gridlock, two, because opposing sides are learning to fully utilize this design rather than cooperate against it. The US system is designed to gridlock by having a bicameral legislature (most parliaments are effectively unicameral) with an independent executive and veto. The rules of each house require bills to pass through committees (and, in some cases, cloture) before coming up for a vote. Then you need an executive signature, or else you have to go through the legislative system again with higher thresholds for passing. Additionally, each house, as well as the executive, is elected separately. Unless each house is controlled by the same party as the President, you have to compromise to get anything done (or, alternately, one side can choose to completely obstruct the other). Even if each house is controlled by the same party as the President, you have to get everyone within the party to cooperate. "With no political parties, every single vote would be about political dealmaking and organizing politicians. We would never get anything done."? Every single vote is already about political dealmaking and organizing politicians. That's how the US system works.

protomyth 16y ago

Reason.TV did a great video about attacks during the campaign of 1800 http://reason.tv/video/show/the-negative-campaign-of-1800 http://reason.tv/video/show/the-negative-campaign-of-1800 I actually think you couldn't get away with some of that stuff today.

philwelch 16y ago

Actually, 51% of the votes might get you anywhere between ~10% to ~90% of control, based on how that 51% is distributed. In PR, if x% vote for Party X, Party X holds x% of seats simpliciter. In first past the post, it's distributed by constituency. If you win 49% in every district and 99% in the single most populous district, you get only one seat even though you got strictly more than half the vote (assuming a strict two party system). One interesting difference between the US system and the parliamentary system is how coalitions work. In one sense, US parties are themselves coalitions already. Democrats are a coalition between labor, feminists, environmentalists, minorities, leftists, civil libertarians, and various single-issue voters; Republicans are a coalition between militarists, free-marketers, right-wing Christians of all denominations, and various single-issue voters. If you're a gun-owning trade unionist, who are you going to vote for? In practice, places with a lot of gun owning trade unionists end up with pro-gun Democrats and pro-union Republicans, and then they have to dynamically form coalitions just like a parliamentary system. Likewise, you don't get huge factions of the Labour party voting against a Labour PM in Parliament unless they want to start something; whereas you do get that in the US system. There are even bipartisan coalitions, between conservative Democrats and Republicans during the Reagan years, or even single-issue coalitions across both parties (though these are diminishing--"pro-life" Democrats and "pro-choice" Republicans have become increasingly ostracized and purged from their respective parties, for instance). So in effect, the US system allows dynamic coalitions to form between individual members of Congress, while a PR-based parliamentary system (theoretically) allows dynamic coalitions to form between multitudes of small parties. (In practice, there are still pretty tight upper bounds on how many different parties you can have, for reasons best described as "brand recognition".) What's the effect? In a parliament, it's harder to form a coalition, but once formed the coalition effectively runs the table until someone decides to start over again. In the US system, every individual piece of legislation can pass or fail, and it's an errand to shove it though. Gridlock happens for two reasons: one, the US system is designed to gridlock, two, because opposing sides are learning to fully utilize this design rather than cooperate against it. The US system is designed to gridlock by having a bicameral legislature (most parliaments are effectively unicameral) with an independent executive and veto. The rules of each house require bills to pass through committees (and, in some cases, cloture) before coming up for a vote. Then you need an executive signature, or else you have to go through the legislative system again with higher thresholds for passing. Additionally, each house, as well as the executive, is elected separately. Unless each house is controlled by the same party as the President, you have to compromise to get anything done (or, alternately, one side can choose to completely obstruct the other). Even if each house is controlled by the same party as the President, you have to get everyone within the party to cooperate. "With no political parties, every single vote would be about political dealmaking and organizing politicians. We would never get anything done."? Every single vote is already about political dealmaking and organizing politicians. That's how the US system works.