Veteran politics reporter Dick Meyer here writes that the U.S. badly needs a three-party system. Thanks to John Carey for the link.
Veteran politics reporter Dick Meyer here writes that the U.S. badly needs a three-party system. Thanks to John Carey for the link.
Why mention American’s Elect, when they are no longer around in most all states. Judge Nap says we just have one big government party with a Democratic wing and Republican wing. He could have mentioned the LP and Gary Johnson with 48 state ballot access in 2012.
How many *veteran* reporters are brain dead IGNORANT about gerrymander math and proportional representation [around since the 1840s – repeat 1840s] ???
Dick Meyer is clueless. Three parties simply can’t exist in an election system where voters vote for one candidate only, and the winner is the person with more votes.
Proportional representation gives more power to the parties; it should be rejected outright for that reason alone. We need to reduce the power of political parties, not increase their power. Although proportional representation might be workable for some non-partisan local elections, it can’t possibly work for electing Congress or the President. Besides, proportional representation for federal elections would require amending the US Constitution – which ain’t gonna happen. Ranked choice voting is the answer that works for all levels of elections in the USA.
Although that has been the conventional wisdom, the experience of Canada seems to contradict that idea. Canada now has 3 parties that are capable of winning the October 2015 election.
Wisconsin had 3 parties capable of winning control of the state government in the years 1934-1945.
Don Wills comment —
how many const amdts relating to election stuff since the 12th amdt ???
Once upon a time the EVIL slavery forces thought slavery would continue forever.
Once upon a time the EVIL forces of divine right of kings thought absolute monarchy would continue forever.
NOW – current ANTI-Democracy gerrymander math –
1/2 or less votes x 1/2 gerrymander rigged districts = 1/4 or less CONTROL. It shows.
—
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
Simple P.R. —
Party Seats = Total Seats x Party Votes / Total Votes
Both majority rule and minority representation.
The comparison of national electoral politics of the US and Canada is not particularly useful. The elephant in the room is that the election of the Prime Minister is made by the legislature whereas the electoral college (the states) decide who is the President. The election of Bill Clinton will forever put a dagger in the heart of third parties in the US – the memory of voting your conscience (Perot) vs. voting for the lesser of two evils will hold sway with Republican voters for decades. Plus the only significant power the Prime Minister has is to decide when the next election happens, whereas the President is much more powerful with almost unassailable executive powers.
I reject the implicit idea that somehow Canada is a multi-party electorate, and that such a system is compatible with a one vote, winner take all system. Canadian voters are just as right/left polarized as US voters, with the exception of Parti Québécois which is the Quebec secessionist party. Also note, while there has been slight realignment of the two controlling parties through the last century, in reality the lefties (Liberal Party) and the righties (Conservative Party and its predecessor) have held exclusive power for more than 100 years.
Demo Rep: The only question you asked was: “how many const amdts relating to election stuff since the 12th amdt ???”
Answer: 7
Comment: The number is irrelevant. The two parties, with the support of the fear of the populace, will strongly resist any Constitutional Amendment moving to proportional representation. We can argue about which alternative system is the best, but such argument is as irrelevant as arguing about the number of angels on the head of a pin. What we can agree on is that the one vote, winner take all system is severely flawed for a country the size and as heterogenous as the USA.
Ignoring the quest for the most perfect electoral system, the question of can the US change to RCV or proportional *is* relevant. My answer is yes, RCV can be implemented on a state-by-state basis without amending the US Constitution, and in some states without amending the state constitution. And no, moving to proportional cannot realistically happen. I choose the path towards that which can happen versus a fantasy. I eagerly await what will happen in Maine in the near future to prove or disprove my point.
About 18 States have voter petitions for State const. amdts.
SCOTUS case pending about the gerrymander base – obsolete population stats or voters.
Major gerrymander case in WI.
Stay tuned. Never say never — in politics stuff especially.
See P.R. in the New Zealand regime — after some major uproar about the percent of seats won vs. percent of votes for the various parties. Now about 5-7 parties win seats. The Sun continues to rise in N.Z.
A bit more.
Gerrymanders —
1. UNEQUAL votes for each gerrymander winner.
2. UNEQUAL total votes in each rigged pack/crack gerrymander district.
3. DARK AGE *AREA* fixation for single member gerrymander districts.
Too many MORON lawyers and judges in gerrymander cases to count.
The 1776-1787 constitutions were all LATE Dark Age documents.
P.R. — around since the 1840s — now in use in *civilized* nations such as Germany, Israel, Netherland, New Zealand, etc. etc. — i,e. much of the free world NOT having DARK AGE stuff such as the U.K. and its ex-colonies – U.S.A., Canada, India, etc.
A three party system? What our country REALLY needs is proportional representation and ranked choice voting. Then we’d likely have four or more significant parties in our government, representing more of our country’s diverse viewpoints.
The only way a 3rd party will take hold and make the United States a 3-party system, is that the 3rd party become a populist party. It must be “liberal” on economic issues, and “conservative” on social issues. A liberal 3rd party will only take votes away from the Democrats, and a conservative 3rd party will take votes away from the Republicans. It must be a populist party, which in many ways will be a “centrist” party.
Canada does not have a President. The Queen is not elected.
The Democrats were not capable of winning control of the government by 1938. They were a very weak 3rd party. The Progressives had collapsed by 1944.
House members:
1932 D 59, R 37, S 3, I 1
1934 P 44, D 34, R 19, S 3
1936 P 49, D 31, R 21
1938 R 53, P 32, D 15
1940 R 61, P 24, D 15
1942 R 73, D 14, P 13
1944 R 75, D 18, P 7
1946 R 88. D 12
AI writes – “the 3rd party … must be “liberal” on economic issues, and “conservative” on social issues”
…which is exactly the opposite of the most successful third party in the USA for the last 50 years: the LP, which in general terms is “conservative” on economic issues, and “liberal” on social issues.
Dreaming of any third party under the existing electoral system is a waste of neuron firings.
No substantive change will happen through electoral politics until the USA gets rid of the single vote, single winner system.
Wisconsin Democrats elected a US Senator in 1932 and in 1934 were less than 14,000 votes away from winning the Governorship. Democrats carried the presidential election in Wisconsin in 1932, 1936, and 1940. Democrats elected 1 US House member in Wisconsin in 1940 and three in 1942. Progressives won the 1942 gubernatorial election and 2 US House seats in 1942.
1932 was before 1934-1945. Democrats won 27 of 32 US senate seats in 1932. When Sen. Duffy ran for reelection in 1938, he finished 3rd.
The statewide Wisconsin Democratic party was not necessarily aligned with the national Democratic party. FDR supported LaFollette (Young Bob) in his senate races. When Phil LaFollette attempted to create a national Progressive party in 1938, he failed. Thus statewide elections had little to do with presidential elections.
The Progressives never had an effective party organization. Notice the decline in their house membership from 1936(48); 1938(32); 1940(24); 1942(13); 1944(7).
The progressives would have been better served by implementing Top 2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation
Political SCIENCE advanced after 1787 — regardless of ALL of the gerrymander monarchs / oligarchs.
Count the number of nations with P.R. in the wiki.