Ralph Nader's (and others') talk about the lack of third parties made me want to spend more time on that notion - on our plurality / winner-take-all / first-past-the-post system as compared to a proportional system*.
As a first, and I think very fun, step, let's consider all the possible different parties that could exist in our system if we were starting from scratch. In my mind, the list of parties might look like the following:
On the Right
- Libertarian party
- Tea Party
- Conservative party
- Christian Coalition party
- Pro-Business / Pro-Growth party
On the Left
- Communist party
- Socialist party
- Liberal party
- Progressive party
- Blue Dog party
In a proportional system, all these parties would be likely to have some level of success getting votes to have membership in the elected body. But we don't have a proportional system. So let's imagine these parties in a winner-takes-all system, which is what we have.
For argument's sake, let's say that one group, the Progressive party, has the most support, if only by a small amount. (My choice wasn't totally random, I chose the Progressives because I think that's where I would vote, but for this exercise it could be any party.) So if the progressive party has the most support, two of the parties on the right would have every incentive to get together to beat out the Progressives.
For example, the Conservative party might link up with the Tea party, seeing that they have a lot in common and would hate to see a party on the left win. Well now that those two parties have linked and are in the lead, the Progressives might decide to link with another party so that a group on the right doesn't win. So they link up with the Liberal party.
This back and forth would continue until there are two parties competing for the one position because each party would rather help create a winning party on their side, even if it means compromise, then allow a party on the other side to win (this simple rationality and strategic decision-making didn't seem to appeal to Ralph Nader).
In a proportional system, you don't face that choice because all parties receive seats based on their votes. The only pressure toward fewer parties that I can see would result if the top vote-getting party gets the first opportunity to create a government. In that case, you might see parties merge to create the biggest party.
But besides that scenario, in a proportional system, the coalition-forming and governing comes after the election. If the above-listed parties were in a proportional system, and the Progressive Party received the most votes, they would have to see if they could create a majority governing coalition with other (likely left-leaning) parties.
What seems clear to me is that in a plurality system, strategic decisions (not corruption) lead to a two-party system. If people in this country want more parties, they should fight for a proportional system. I think they know that will never happen, so instead they resort to charges of corruption.
I also think compromise and incremental policy-making is a natural result in either structure. The difference, to my mind, is that in a plurality system the coalitions form before the elections and in a proportional system the coalitions form after the elections. Either way, those governing need to make decisions that are popular with a majority of the people. Those on the extreme or in the minority never like this, but it is a fact of popular government.
So when you find yourself with a belief that is in the minority, you should bemoan not the type of government or the candidates or the number of parties, but the fact that more people don't agree with you. And then you should try to change their minds. Perhaps by debating with them.
*For the purposes of this post, I am referring specifically to a party-proportional system, like that in Israel.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
A Little History, A Little Lite
I just finished reading EH Gombrich's A Little History of the World. The book has a lot of good things about it, and a few negatives. It is a fast read and an easy general history of the world. And each little piece of history you get can prompt you to do further research to get more in depth.
However, because it is so fast, it is very superficial. And times it is very clear that the summary is less than accurate - or just too superficial to be useful. In those cases - or all cases - further research is probably necessary. (The most clear example is the American Civil War. I wouldn't go to this book for a description of that anyway, but when you see what is lacking in that description, you can imagine what is lacking in other descriptions.)
Granted, this book is meant for children, so the lack of depth should be considered in that context. However, children shouldn't be given inaccurate information just for the sake of brevity.
But probably the biggest deficiency of the book is the western focus. When dealing with other cultures outside of Europe, it recognizes some of their accomplishments, but through omission suggests that there wasn't much of interest going on.
The book hardly talks about Russia before the communist revolution. And its coverage of China and the Middle East is similarly lacking. And Africa and South America aren't even covered except to talk about how they were colonized.
A less western-focused book could have talked more about the other great civilizations including the Inca and the Maya, more of the Chinese dynasties, Muslim culture beyond just the conquests, the major African civilizations, and the native tribes in North America.
Considering the strong deficiencies, I am not sure if I would recommend this book to my child (when old enough to read it). I guess as long as he understands what is lacking and will do further research, I would be okay with it. But here's hoping for another author to complete a similar book that includes non-western cultures more. And finds a better way to be brief but more accurate - or admit where he is being too general.
However, because it is so fast, it is very superficial. And times it is very clear that the summary is less than accurate - or just too superficial to be useful. In those cases - or all cases - further research is probably necessary. (The most clear example is the American Civil War. I wouldn't go to this book for a description of that anyway, but when you see what is lacking in that description, you can imagine what is lacking in other descriptions.)
Granted, this book is meant for children, so the lack of depth should be considered in that context. However, children shouldn't be given inaccurate information just for the sake of brevity.
But probably the biggest deficiency of the book is the western focus. When dealing with other cultures outside of Europe, it recognizes some of their accomplishments, but through omission suggests that there wasn't much of interest going on.
The book hardly talks about Russia before the communist revolution. And its coverage of China and the Middle East is similarly lacking. And Africa and South America aren't even covered except to talk about how they were colonized.
A less western-focused book could have talked more about the other great civilizations including the Inca and the Maya, more of the Chinese dynasties, Muslim culture beyond just the conquests, the major African civilizations, and the native tribes in North America.
Considering the strong deficiencies, I am not sure if I would recommend this book to my child (when old enough to read it). I guess as long as he understands what is lacking and will do further research, I would be okay with it. But here's hoping for another author to complete a similar book that includes non-western cultures more. And finds a better way to be brief but more accurate - or admit where he is being too general.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)