Topic: Third Party Strategies
Third Parties & Electoral Reform Third parties invariably find themselves in a catch-22. Here's a way out.by Spencer Jayden
(libertarian)
Thursday, November 13, 2008
As I predicted in my last article, the LP is dead, many are still shepherding around the blame over the election results. Some single out unfair ballot access laws and a corrupt media as reasons for the LP's poor showing. Others just blame Barr and the reformers. The more conspiratorial crowd believe in all the above. Both factions will crunch the numbers, divide the funds, solve the quotients, all so they can prove that their campaign made a marginally better impact than last year's campaign. What's all the accounting to distract you from? The fact that they promised great returns last time too? Step away, step away! There's nothing to see here.
While writing this installment, I read an article by fellow columnist Joel S. Hirschhorn, entitled We Need A New National Political Party". I intend to broach that subject eventually, and so I thought some of his ideas were worth mentioning.
But Hirschhorn, with all due respect, makes the same fallacies as many passionate, if otherwise uninformed liberal-centrists do, prescribing an overdose of progressivism for a problem that it has already caused. In responding, I said many of the same things that need to happen NOW in order to magnify the success of any third party in the future. No, there's no one out there cheating you. In fact, if the LP had cleaned up its act, I doubt very many, if any of these reforms would be needed. What follows are answers to Duverger's Law without canning the two-party system.
Runoff voting. This eliminates the "wasted" vote phenomenon that prevent many people from pulling the lever for third parties. For example, you rank your favorite candidates on two tiers. If the first fails to make it past the first tier, their votes will default to another party. Combined with electoral fusion, this would greatly enhance the power of third parties. Another solution is "range voting", which eliminates binary preferences in favor of scales.
Electoral Fusion. Only seven states in the union [4] still support voter fusion and what a difference it makes. What this is, for those unfamiliar, is to provide for cross-nominations between parties and candidates. During the primary season, this also was a hotly contested issue and it even went to a vote in a few states whether to (re)-legalize it.
District-by-District Representation in the Electoral College. The Electoral College is a bulwark against many populist campaigns. The average Joe's IQ is about 90 on a normal 140 point scale. Now, it's safe to assume everyone on NC is above-average, but do you really want Joe Sixpack deciding your fate especially if they don't even live in the same state as you? Having said that, it's still deeply flawed. Candidates spend time in 5 or 6 states in order to sway the independents' vote, even though a state like OH's 51% [1] independents are worth statistically less than CA's 20% [2], in real numbers. Earlier in 2007, there was a proposition floating in CA to change the winner-take-all system, and a similar one recently went to the ballot in CO. [3] Think about how much more effective they'd have to be at spreading their message now, compounded on the idea of runoff voting within primaries or national elections?
In no particular order, these steps would greatly affect voter confidence in third parties. THIS is where we should be running our education campaigns at the moment. I humbly believe this issue transcends all third party ideologies, but still reflects small-L libertarian ideals.
Despite the rationalizations, it's important to remember that these steps are not necessarily greater barriers than the ones we're against now in terms of ballot access, media coverage, etc, and that the possibility remains that one day some hardcore libertarian/socialist celebrity will rise to the occasion and triumphantly beat down our oppressors. But I hardly have to point out that the odds for that are extremely low. And no, people, Barr/Root was not such a ticket. Neither is a one-time bestselling author, an almost senile former senator, consumer advocate and perennial political loser, or a quite possibly insane former Georgian congresswoman.
The views expressed in this
article are those of Spencer Jayden only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Spencer Jayden is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-11-13 13:26:41
If you're going to make the electoral college weighted proportionally to the popular vote, doesn't that actually undermine its original purpose? Not that it bothers me...unlike some who are all hung up about America being a "republic" (which it's not, by the way....it's a "democratic republic," a fusion of the two concepts), I don't think there's anything particularly intelligent about the idea that the public can be trusted to elect every office under the sun from mayor to state rep to governor to Congressman to Senator, but not President. To me it just smacks of elitism.
Also, in case you hadn't noticed, the Electoral College helps insure that only two major parties can ever compete. If you're trying to pull for a "better" third party, you should be an opponent of the EC, not a defender. The EC is the primary reason (among many reasons, I grant you) why no third-party candidate has ever won the presidency.
If you're going to make the electoral college weighted proportionally to the popular vote, doesn't that actually undermine its original purpose?
No, that's not the same as purely removing the EC. In such a system, every district would be a level playing field, or more of that in fact. Removing the EC, all you need to do is compete in NYC and LA and you win...
Not that it bothers me...unlike some who are all hung up about America being a "republic" (which it's not, by the way....it's a "democratic republic," a fusion of the two concepts), I don't think there's anything particularly intelligent about the idea that the public can be trusted to elect every office under the sun...To me it just smacks of elitism.
This is in firm alignment with a democratic republic. I'm well aware of what the intended system of government was for this country. I believe you misread me.
Also, in case you hadn't noticed, the Electoral College helps insure that only two major parties can ever compete. If you're trying to pull for a "better" third party, you should be an opponent of the EC, not a defender. The EC is the primary reason (among many reasons, I grant you) why no third-party candidate has ever won the presidency.
How arrogant of you. I AM a supporter of a two party system. A two party system does have advantages. I believe in two major parties and one third party always viable and ready to take the spot of one of the two. If you were to look at the two parties today as a corporate duopoly co-opting third party agendas, then these measures would restore true "free market" practices and the chance for idealistically PURE parties to move up constantly. Not stagnate like the two that we have now.
Reform of the EC using the Nebraska model, where the two Senator-equivalent Electors are elected by the statewide vote and the Representative-equivalent Electors by the votes in the various congressional districts, makes a lot of sense. Not only would it make it easier for a new party to emerge (should it start capturing Electoral votes as well as Congressmen), but it would be of benefit in destroying the Red/Blue/Purple State mentality, and help make U.S. elections truly national contests once again.
As for the rest of your plan: well, I'll leave it at the positive comment.
I think you should read "Catch 22" again (if you ever did) so you know the kind of reference you're using. I don't see any "catch 22" situation here AT ALL.
However, your reference to "the average Joe's IQ (being) about 90 on a normal 140 point scale" only makes me position YOU more closely to that AVERAGE JOE.
The ELECTORAL COLLEGE does not PREVENT a popularity contest from ensuing, it only gives it a different FLAVOR. It lets GW Bush win the Presidency over Al Gore, for instance, and makes PARTY LOYALTY more important than it does INDIVIDUAL participation because of the way electoral votes are cast.
"Runoff voting" is about as clever an idea as putting peanut butter and jelly in the same jar! This won't change outcomes as much as it will PROLONG them. There will be countless runoffs, vastly extended campaigning, even coalitions that will attempt to ENCOURAGE opposition candidates to SPOIL certain elections. It will certainly NOT open up more opportunity for the so-called "alternative" candidates. It will only make them more of the SPOILERS than they've been.
I think your reference to "electoral fusion" is about as clear, understandable, and achievable as COLD FUSION has been which creates more energy from its reaction than it starts with ~ and THAT hasn't happened!
I think you left some items on the drawing board when you wrote this article, and need to do a little better job of explaining, persuading, and convincing than you've done in this weak, shallow, and banal attempt at insight.
Maybe you could get a new job writing insults and retorts for some 5th grade school bullies. Your work is more appropriate and closer quality-wise to them.
By the way, if you paid attention to actual real-world applications for some of the above, you would find many of your straw attacks rendered false, because it is clear that you tried to sound witty and badass instead of supporting your counterclaims. The Democratic Party, of which you are a paid shill, uses runoff and proportional allocation in their caucuses. Congress already uses caucuses, which ARE coalitions (right now, the two independent senators Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman, caucus with the Dems.)
I don't know why I'm bothering to explain any of this to you, as it doesn't look like you're capable of understanding how things are applied, because you've never dealt with anything but theory your whole life. That's all modern liberalism (and academia) has to show for it, right, fool?
In summation, I am glad that you took the few minutes required to read this article (unless you are outstandingly slow), because it ultimately wasted your time and makes you look like the retard you really are.
Furthermore, when YOU or ANYONE here posts actual suggestions to implement their ideology, whether it be your cannibalistic liberalism, or freedom-loving libertarianism, I will be happy to applaud them for the effort, but until that, all I see are garbage "I wanna fuck Ron Paul" "Fed raped me" and even your retarded threads like an Atlas Shrugged book review type columns. Waste of time, all of you.
I bid you good day. Maybe you can print this out and show it to your colleagues at the CC and they can all laud how brilliant you are.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
