Law Professor David Schleicher has published “Things Aren’t Going That Well Over There Either: Party Polarization and Election Law in Comparative Perspective”, a 36-page paper which can be read at this link. His thesis is that western democracies, including the United States, are seeing a rise in voter support for parties and candidates who are more interested in ideological politics than in compromise and pragmatic problem-solving.
He says this manifests itself in different ways. In the United States, ideological groups, especially the Tea Party movement, mostly act within Republican Party primaries and caucuses. In Great Britain and Canada, where it is far more difficult for outsiders to influence the existing major parties, there is growing support for new and minor parties. In continental Europe, which almost entirely uses proportional representation, there is growing support for the kind of political parties whose ideas are so outside conventional politics, the bigger parties don’t want to form coalition governments with them. Examples in Germany are Die Linke, a party too far to the left to be invited into government, and Alternative for Germany, which opposes the Euro. An example in Italy is the Five Star Movement, which wants to require members of parliament to vote according to public opinion as expressed in online polls.
The paper is interesting to read and expresses its ideas clearly. There are some typos inside the paper, plus the paper erroneously refers to the New Democratic Party of Canada as the “National Democratic Party.” Papers at this stage are often posted before they are completely polished. The paper provides references to the work of political scientists who have determined that tinkering with the type of primary system in the U.S. does not ameliorate polarization. Thanks to Rick Hasen and Thomas Jones for the link.
Oh yea!! Like I believe that!! Har, har!!
The 9th USA Parliaments United Coalition!
http://www.usparliament.org/usap-wp
The MORONS in Europe did NOT learn ANY thing from the Hitler tyranny in Germany in 1933-1945 —
i.e. F-A-T-A-L to have the Parliamentary system
— the same robot hacks having both legislative and executive powers.
Prof. S. is like LOTS of MORON profs regarding gerrymander math in the USA and the UK regimes —
1/2 votes x 1/2 pack/crack gerrymander areas = 1/4 CONTROL indirectly.
Actual control math by the left/right polarized gangs is about 10 percent or less in gerrymander primary elections having NO incumbents.
I.E. one EVIL gang of OLIGARCHS in all 50 State legislatres and in the Congress — since 1776 and 1789 respectively.
—
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V. — to END the EVIL rotted mess since the 1200s.
i.e. have elections actually mean something — regarding DEMOCRACY.
P.R. has been around since the 1820s-1840s (repeat 1820s-1840s) — regardless of ALL of the brain dead profs writing ALL of their polarization stuff.
Professor David Schleicher is correct that things are not going to get any better under our current political system. All major parties in whatever country, are “would be” dictators and many of their leaders hold the view, “We know best for the average Joe.”
Well, I believe the average Joe – whether in Birmingham, Alabama or Birmingham, England – is getting fed up with these political snobs who look down their nose at the average citizen as some type of chattel to be controlled and told, “you don’t really understand the issue, so shut and vote as you are told.”
I hope the average Joes throughout America will wake up and tell both major parties to take a flying leap into the nearest pond. We may have been born at night, but we weren’t born last night. We understand the issues better than the elites of government think we do.
And one thing, there are more of us, than there are of them. We just need to joint together and work to show them who is boss. The question is, will we do it?
Nothing new about polarization stuff —
See Federalist No. 10 —
MAJORITY RULE (i.e. Democracy) to defeat ANTI-Democracy Extremists (i.e. control freak monarchs/oligarchs)
Again – modern P.R. came along about 30-50 years after the gerrymander hacks got entrenched in the State and USA regimes.
The CRISIS is N-O-W.
I don’t see much to credit here as he sees wasted votes as voters voting for polarization rather than as citizen electors electing to dismiss the unjust political system if not just a rejection of other candidates.
Probably no such thing as bad election law and/or electoral design in this framework.
The idea that the two parties are said to be getting distinct and different these past 30 or so years bellies the bipartisan monopoly unrelated to any first principles save wealth.