The Need for Third Parties

[Skipper]

Think the current two parties offer enough choice to the voter? Think again.

http://theamericanconservatives.org/cms ... Itemid=175

I happen to side with Washington on this one (obviously), but I'd like to hear others' opinions.

[taxlaw4u]

Skipper,

It is a complex question. Does the third party serve us or divide from a similar party and simply insure the control of the remaining major party?

Many nations who have successful multi-party systems do not have direct representation elections like we have. For instance, if IL were allotted 25 seats in the House, the Dems would get as many seats as their portion of the vote revealed support and the party would pick the representatives. If the ACP got 4% of the vote, they would get one representative. If the Greens got 8%, they would get two slots. At the end of the day, probably no party would have a majority forcing negotiation and compromise on the part of everybody to get bills passed. If there’s not a true consensus, the bill probably doesn’t deserve to be passed.

Obviously, this would require a major overhaul of our Constitution. Would this be good or bad? I think it would be good for several reasons. First, it would break the stranglehold of the two party system that Washington warned about and which we have lived. It might also break up the pork barrel spending. Instead of representing just a few people in one district of IL, that ACP representative would be representing IL as a whole. If his or her vote came from one part of the state, he/she might have a tendency to represent the wishes of that region but it probably should be that way - you represent the interest of those who put you there.

The primary system is falling apart. Just look at what happened to the Dems in SC. If you look at what occurred in UT, the party selection vs the open primary places the burden on the party. So when a representative goes rogue, rather than blame the rep, the people can blame the party because they chose him/her. If parties are going to control, which they will whether we like it or not, then put the party on the hot seat. Too much emphasis/credit/blame is placed on the individual today. While some individuals will emerge as true leaders/statesmen, those are the ones who will be in a better position to move up to higher positions such as president. The way things are, the parties are in a position to take a complete unknown, such as Obama, and force him down the throats of the American people. Make these candidates earn those positions with trust and success, not just the money backing from a bunch of unknown contributors.

[Wdporter]

Sonny,

Good points, but keep in mind the UK still has a "Constituency" setup, and not proportional representation (even though they're pushing for it). The recent election forced a coalition Government between the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives...of course, Conservative there doesn't mean the same thing as conservative here.

There is a HUGE difference here: ALL of our ballot access laws are controlled by the States...even ballot access for Federal elected officials. We can compete on the system that is best.

There are three major components that are important to having a fair and Democratic voting process that can be changed at the State level, and which would NOT require a complete overhaul of the Constitution, and would ONLY require an expansion of a very simple process at the State and Federal Legislative levels.

The three at the State level:

1) NO party registrations for the voters. They are simply a registered voter, and they have to consciously join their local Party Committee to be a considered a member of the party...they vote independently.
2) Reasonable and equitable ballot access qualifications for ALL candidates. Whether R, D, L, C, A, or Ind...ALL candidates should have to pay the same fee and have the same number of signatures...
3) Runoffs. Some get hung up on "open primaries" or closed primaries and whether people should be able to "crossover"...the main point is that people get a chance to vote for their first choice, and if noone gets 50% of the vote, they should be able to choose from the top two.

I don't know of any States in the United States which have all three of these...For instance VA has number one and number two...but not number three. GA has number 3, but it SURE AS HELL doesn't have number 2...LA has number 2 and 3, I believe...but not number one.

In my opinion it takes all three. Does anyone know of a State that has all three of these?

OH, and if a plurality of the States in the U.S. has this in place, then it just means that (sort of like in the U.K. but not quite, obviously) more than one party might have to come together and form a "Caucus" (there is already a "Democratic Caucus" in the Senate and when there are Conservative Independent or Third Party Congressmen and Senators, there will be a Republican Caucus), in order to follow the rules of majority and minority, committee chairs, etc, at the Legislative level. Most of the two-party-based rules that govern Congress are not laid out in the Constitution at all; they're just rules that have been established over the years.

Since our Executive Branch is completely separate (unlike the UK), a multi-party system would have no problems here. It might take longer to figure out who won if a plurality of states have runoffs with viable "Third Party" alternatives in the mix, but you won't have the same rather shady deals that have to be made regarding Cabinet members being promised based on party affiliation in the deal to form a Caucus.

[taxlaw4u]

Butch:

I don't disagree with your assessment but question whether some of the principles in that list contradict each other. If people get to vote for their first choice in multiple elections, then they might be able to vote for a Dem for state senate and Repub for Congress and an ACP for mayor. Illinois does not require registration but will only allow you to vote in one party's primary per election. Shouldn't a party be able to determine it's own means for selection of it's candidate? If they allow open elections, the the public gets to choose their candidate (however the party has been known to take an elected nominee out as the repubs did that in 2004 in IL which allowed Obama to become elected to the Senate and eventually the presidency). Crossovers become a problem when one party has a strong candidate and can afford for some of its members to vote in another party's election. I'm not sure how to fix this system. However, some states ( I believe ME and NB) do a proportional allotment of electoral votes. Why couldn't states do that with congressional seats (or is there something in the Constitution that would prevent that?).
Another approach is to take the top vote getters rather than allot seats in proportion to votes. So if IL gets 25 seats, every voter gets 1 vote and the top 25 are on their way to DC. As a result, any would be 3rd party wouldn't need to "win" an election but just be in the top 25 to be recognized and get a shot at the table. Many people would vote for the super popular within their party giving them huge margins (even though you just need to win by 1 vote). You could find a situation where the Dem might get 60% of the votes but because they were all cast for one individual, they only got one seat. Think of the confusion and the complexity of planning for the parties. The parties with stupid constituencies or poor planners would get shafted under the weight of their own voters. Personally I think it might be kind of humorous - if it didn't cause a revolution after the election. I actually saw something like this happen when I was in high school and they hadn't fully thought through the process when they set the voting system up. We ended up with sit ins and a near riot on our hands - but it was the 70s and a lot of them were stoned I think.

[Skipper]

I love the idea of runoffs. This would kill the whole "split the vote" mentality, and ensure we don't get representatives elected with 35% of the vote.

So far as party candidates are concerned, I'm with Taxlaw in thinking that it ought to be up to the party to see how they would like to elect their candidates. Should the Greens wish to elect based on how many trees their candidate planted that year, the Republicans based on who has the best hair, the Democrats based on who has the most shades of skin colour in their circle of friends, and the ACP based on an internal vote from its constituency; have at it! The American voters would have the final say at the ballot box.

[taxlaw4u]

Skipper:

And the worst case scenario is that the two major parties have to run off against each other.

[Skipper]

Exactly! No split of the vote whatsoever. If there are Democrat, Republican, and ACP candidates running and the ACP person gets 30%, the GOP 28%, and the Dem 40% with 2% undecided, the final vote would be a landslide for the ACP candidate.

Of course, most people look only along the lines of Presidential elections. One of the many downsides to our citizenry no longer thinking and acting locally.

[Wdporter]

I think you're proving my point about getting caught up in "open primaries" or "closed primaries"...

Shouldn't a party be able to determine it's own means for selection of it's candidate? If they allow open elections, the the public gets to choose their candidate (however the party has been known to take an elected nominee out as the repubs did that in 2004 in IL which allowed Obama to become elected to the Senate and eventually the presidency). Crossovers become a problem when one party has a strong candidate and can afford for some of its members to vote in another party's election. I'm not sure how to fix this system. However, some states ( I believe ME and NB) do a proportional allotment of electoral votes.

My point is that if you have no party registration, then the party itself has a lot more control over how they elect their candidates. Here in VA, the District decides whether they do a primary or a caucus or as many as three other options. So I agree that a party should have some sort of say so on who they have represent them. The question is always: how much does the party leadership have say so vs. the "rank and file." I'm not comfortable making that uniform in all 50 States and all Districts.

This is why I'm NOT a supporter of Proportional Representation. We have PR here in the U.S. at the Town Level, even in VA, which does not follow the New England "township" model, but doing that at the U.S. Congressional level indeed DOES have Constitutional implications, and it would likely force all 50 States to have COMPLETELY identical election setups (just like Term Limits). It is also a MONSTROUS SEA CHANGE for how Congress is elected, regardless of Constitutionality.

I think the three I laid out does provide some flexibility, but they're already being done in some states in different combinations, so it can be done in more States. This will not solve all problems, but I do not think that they contradict each other in any way. Number 3 is made a little more complicated with no party registration (number 1), but there are a variety of ways to handle that, and if it means an extra election or two, I'm all for it.

Good things...

[taxlaw4u]

Butch:

Maybe I'm just not understanding your point. I am talking about two different things here, (1) how a party choses their candidate and (2) how representation is alloted after the general.

I like our system here in IL regarding primaries. A party may choose their own candidate if they wish without a public primary. But voters are only allowed to vote in one primary per election. I could vote in the Dem primary one year and repub the next year. There's no formal registration to a party in the open primary system here. But I can't help choose the Repub candidate for Senate and the Dem candidate for governor in the same election year. I have to pick one party if I wish to participate in either process. This leaves the voters free to choose the election they consider the most important but cuts down on the crossover voting.

Our general elections work two way. Some local jurisdictions have eliminated partisan elections. Most let the person with the highest vote total win the election. I don't like that. I know Nashville, TN abandoned partisan mayoral elections over 40 years ago. If somebody wins over 50% in the "primary" (or first general - whatever you call it), they become the mayor. If not, the two top vote getters are in a runoff. They may both be "Democrats" or "Republicans" in their private life but as far as the elections commission is concerned, they are just Joe and Sally because there's no party affiliated with their name on the ballot.

Our partisan elections take the top vote getter period. There is no runoff (and rarely a need because the two parties dominate). This isn't so much an issue when there's just one slot such as governor. My question as to proportional representation regards seats like Congress. What I would like to see is 25 repubs, 25 dems, 7 Greens and 7 ACP candidates running. If the Repub candidates got 33% of the votes, the Dems got 33%, the Greens got 16.5% and ther ACP got 16.5, the positions would be allocated proportionally. Assuming you had 30 slots open, the Repubs get 10, the dems get 10, the Greens get 5 and the ACP gets 5. Which R, D, G and A that would be would depend on which got the most votes. So the ACP people with the 5 most votes would fill those 5 slots. Since 16.5% of the people wanted the ACP, they would get that but they might not get the ACP person they voted for.

[Wdporter]

Sonny,

I agree regarding the open primaries, but only party per year...I think that sounds like a great setup. My point is that's less important than what choices people have in the general election.

So we don't disagree on how Parties pick their candidates. I would simply posit that the process should not necessarily be uniform.

Now as far as General elections, I'm proposing runoffs, which are already done in at least a few states (LA and GA are the only ones that come to mind right off, but there are probably more).

You are proposing proportional representation, which means the congressional districts go away (by the way, I misspoke earlier when I said towns here in VA have PR...they're non-partisan, so they can't. They do however operate without constituencies or districts, so that the top three get elected, and they're all "at large")

My contention remains that doing this at the Congressional level, might help Third Party movements like ours (which is why the Liberal Democrats want it done in the UK), it would be a DRASTIC shift in how our Congress is elected, and would likely take an Amendment to do it.

It also would exacerbate the problem of urban nightmares controlling how quite a few of our congressmen are elected. There are some states that would probably not see a greater dominance of Democratic candidates than they do now, and your state is likely one of them.

Lastly it gives Parties in general a little too much power, and doesn't allow the flexibility of a lot of "rank and file" input on picking candidates for the parties (with PR at the Congressional level, you'd have decidedly less participation from the rank and file, because ALL representatives-not just statewide offices-would have to presumably be held at a Statewide convention). And, in a way, it means you almost can't separate the two discussions in the way we've tried to, because with PR you don't vote for candidates at all, but for the party itself...and I just can't see that as compatible with the American system of representative, republican government.

It's a fun exercise, but I would mark it as unbloodylikely. Runoffs, on the other hand, might not get a Minor party as many candidates right off, but it's more likely to actually happen, and can give Minor Parties plenty of influence even in elections that they do not win.