Charles Wheelan, founder of the Centrist Project, writes here in U.S. News that the U.S. needs a multi-party system. The article is focused on Michael Bloomberg, and Wheelan makes his larger point toward the end of the article.
Charles Wheelan, founder of the Centrist Project, writes here in U.S. News that the U.S. needs a multi-party system. The article is focused on Michael Bloomberg, and Wheelan makes his larger point toward the end of the article.
Wheelan seems to be the typical ivory tower college professor who simply wishes for something that almost certainly can’t happen in a winner take all electoral system.
Ignorance of the effects of electoral systems is pervasive across the entire spectrum of political commentary and thinking in the USA.
Don, your information is out-of-date. Great Britain and Canada have the same election systems we do, but they now have multi-party systems.
Richard,
The US does not have a parliamentary form of government.
Richard – I disagree. Independents and third party candidates almost universally lose elections because of our electoral system.
The article was about the presidential election. Canada and Great Britain don’t elect their heads of state. We do. It is first past the post for electoral votes for every state except Nebraska. That reality translates directly into defensive voting and to the situation that if either of the big two broke up, or if an independent took away substantial number of votes for the traditional majority party in a state, the minority party would win all of the electoral votes. Think about what happens in New York if Bloomberg runs – the Republican would have a real shot at winning the state’s electoral votes because the historically D voters would split between the D candidate and Bloomberg. Voters are smart enough to not let that happen – regardless of what they say to pollsters, when they actually vote, most voters do vote for the party they consider to be their political home, particularly in the presidential contest.
Ranked choice voting, approval voting, and even proportional representation in multi-member districts would change things dramatically. But until that happens, simple math creates the biggest hurdle to anyone trying to get elected who is not a D or R. I am very hopeful that Maine will be the bell weather for electoral reform when they vote on adopting RCV/IRV this November. That would be a real game changer.
Jim, I didn’t say the US has the same “form of government” has Britain and Canada. It said the US has the same election system.
Don and Jim,
The misconception that parliamentary government and proportional representation somehow go together is very widespread. So you have lots of company. In fact, across the many countries that have elected governments, there is no correlation between the two aspects of political structure.
Having said that, the U.S. combination of winner-take-all legislative elections and direct election of the chief executive is the most hostile to multi-party democracy. The U.K. and Canada, mentioned by Richard, have plurality voting in single member districts, but in both countries parliamentary government is one of several factors that lessen its impact on the party system. Two other factors are geographic concentration of political minorities and fair ballot access rules.
Bob –
My comment did not have directly to do with a parliamentary form of government vs. ours. It had to do with first past the post election systems in direct elections. In the US, if no single candidate for president gets a majority of the electoral votes, the election goes to the House. Third parties or independents are left out. Even more importantly, *all* electoral votes from a state go to the candidate with the largest number of votes. The result is voters are rightly reluctant to vote for someone like Bloomberg who might move NY into the GOP column with 40% of the vote. However, in Britain, if a third party elects a member of parliament in a given district, then that person can represent both the interests of the largest number of voters of the district, as well as have an impact on the decision about who is the prime minister. Thus the vote for an outsider is not as “wasted” as it is in the US.
Richard,
Cattle and humans have four limbs. Humans have opposable thumbs on the ends of the limbs closer to the head. Can we conclude that cattle have opposable thumbs?
No!
In the US, the separate election of legislators and the executive leads to legislators being seen as representing their district, sometimes on a lifetime basis. You would never have a representative being elected, and saying he had heard that her district was lovely, and that she hoped to visit sometime soon.
For Richard Grayson to have been elected, he would have had to move to Wyoming at least on election day (plus receive more votes). In practical terms, the connection to the district has to be even stronger.
In a parliamentary system, it is more likely that a vote is cast based on an opinion of the PM rather than one’s MP. A vote is more partisan than personal.
While votes are cast and counted in a similar manner in the USA and Canada, the purpose and timing of elections is different, and the motivations is also different.
And of course Canada does not have partisan primaries, so there electoral system is different. The concurrence of federal and state primaries in the United States tends to force political alignment between state and federal parties. Canada provincial and federal parties are not identical. Provincial and federal elections occur at different times, and are actually conducted by different electoral agencies.
Bob,
I never said anything about proportional representation.
The point you make in your second paragraph is what I was indicating to Richard Winger, by noting that Canada and the UK have parliamentary systems.