Wednesday, November 23, 2005
King Me!
A British politics class that I sat in on while visiting the UK turned me on to an interesting dilemma involving third parties. This is purely an intellectual exercise and has nothing to do with the news of today. If interested keep reading. If not, skip to the next post.
In a two party system, such as in the US, voters have no real mechanism to hold a specific party accountable. If the Democrats are doing something liberals don’t like, liberals are SOL since their only recourse is to vote for someone else (negative reinforcement for the Dems and a negative - ie, moving away - reaction for the individual citizens trying to hold the Dems accountable). In most cases, even if a conservative doesn’t like the Republican representative running for her district, she is stuck since the Democratic candidate would likely be a much much worse fit for her views. Often this problem can be alleviated by a competitive third major party.
The main criticism attributed to the LibDems in the UK is that they don’t stand for anything unique from what Labour or the Torries stand for. The difference is - and it is important - that the LibDems hold many of the same views as Labour or Conservative, but in different combinations. If I'm an anti-war, pro-EU UK citizen, neither Labour nor the Torries represent my views well, but the LibDems do. In this specific case, the LibDems actually represent me better even though any single policy stance they hold could also be attributed to one of the other two major parties. This provides a positive outlet for voters. If I am Labour and Tony Blair starts to push legislation that I don’t like, rather than merely not voting or taking the nuclear option and voting for a party that just doesn't represent my views at all, I can vote for the similar party that has a different view on those few areas where my ideals break from those of the Labour party. As such, a competitive third party provides a mechanism for citizens to hold their parties accountable by allowing more subtle motions in public opinion to have a greater effect on the electorate. This stymies the tendency we see in the US for parties to polarize and run towards the more extreme ends of the political spectrum. Even now, with only a marginally competitive third party, the UK parties are converging towards the median voter and the center of the political spectrum rather than the political extremes as in the US.
But there is a unique problem. If there are three parties, often times there will be no clear majority party, but only a plurality party. This will foster coalition governments between the plurality party and the more minor third party (or the party closest in ideology). When this happens, the median voters become the king makers.
Oops. ok.... I am writing this from the airport and its time for me to go check into my flight. I’ll finish this off later, but for now... ponder the meanings of what I have said. Think you know what I am going to say? Think you can point out interesting subtleties? Post a comment.
Comments:
<< Home
Michael,
The political backlash for failing to meet constituent needs or representing constituent values in a two-party system is the couch-vote i.e. staying at home on the couch instead of voting for a party. Although the vast majority of non-voters are not motivated by a specific and informed dislike of a particular party or candidate, the diffuse effect of a party or its representatives doing a poor job is that voters who agree with them idealogically are not motivated to turn up to vote. This obviously gives an advantage to the party for which they would not have voted were they to vote, although not as great a one as if they were actually to change their vote to the opposing party. This spectrum of action allows for exactly the type of third response for which you seem to call. There are two ways to win an election: convince a majority of voters that you are right or change the proportion of people that think you're right (or that your opponent is wrong) that actually vote.
The political backlash for failing to meet constituent needs or representing constituent values in a two-party system is the couch-vote i.e. staying at home on the couch instead of voting for a party. Although the vast majority of non-voters are not motivated by a specific and informed dislike of a particular party or candidate, the diffuse effect of a party or its representatives doing a poor job is that voters who agree with them idealogically are not motivated to turn up to vote. This obviously gives an advantage to the party for which they would not have voted were they to vote, although not as great a one as if they were actually to change their vote to the opposing party. This spectrum of action allows for exactly the type of third response for which you seem to call. There are two ways to win an election: convince a majority of voters that you are right or change the proportion of people that think you're right (or that your opponent is wrong) that actually vote.
# posted by 
: 11:09 PM
: 11:09 PM
You are only reenforcing my point. My point is that in a two party system there is no mechanism for voters to hold their party accountable. They probably wont go vote for the party they disagree with for obvious reasons and 'the couch vote' as you call it has the same effect. This is not a way of holding a party accountable. It is a way of giving up on the system.
In a three party system there is a sectrum of groups taht agree or disagree with your views. If one starts to drift, you can move to teh next closest one.
Like i said, there are ways in a two part system to screw the party your dont like. The difference is that a third party gives voters an option for positive change - actively voting for a different group rather than just getting pissed off and staying at home
In a three party system there is a sectrum of groups taht agree or disagree with your views. If one starts to drift, you can move to teh next closest one.
Like i said, there are ways in a two part system to screw the party your dont like. The difference is that a third party gives voters an option for positive change - actively voting for a different group rather than just getting pissed off and staying at home
That is, quite frankly, inane. In analyzing my argument you make one of two equally incorrect assumptions and, in framing your own, you make substantially more than that. You assume A) that all people that might vote will vote for their own parties B) that no one who doesn't vote will ever vote or C) both. None of the above is necessarily true. The difference between people choosing to vote and failing to vote may well be whether they feel that if their party’s candidate is elected he or she will make a positive difference.
Your analysis is flawed because you assume that three parties will provide a ideological continuum that would provide a legitimate alternative. Unbelievable as it is, there are more than three political philosophies out there. If, for instance, there were a significant Communist party, it is doubtful that either Republicans or Democrats would choose to vote for a Communist over their own party. This gap in your spectrum would mean that there is no benefit to political representation. Even if there were a third party similar enough in ideology to pull voters from either major party, there is nothing to suggest that the political views of three parties would be any more closely aligned than the current system. The "if one starts to drift, you can move to teh [sic] next closest one" logic (if it actually worked) would apply to the current system as well.
In order to have an actual spectrum you would need a party for every major permutation of political view. The country where this is best approximated is Italy, home of the least functioning democracy ever. Of course, when you have multiple parties actually in power, you end up with coalition governments that have to compromise all of their values in order to get any policy enacted.
It’s a nice thought, but there is no magic solution to the basic problems of political representation. Sorry kid.
Your analysis is flawed because you assume that three parties will provide a ideological continuum that would provide a legitimate alternative. Unbelievable as it is, there are more than three political philosophies out there. If, for instance, there were a significant Communist party, it is doubtful that either Republicans or Democrats would choose to vote for a Communist over their own party. This gap in your spectrum would mean that there is no benefit to political representation. Even if there were a third party similar enough in ideology to pull voters from either major party, there is nothing to suggest that the political views of three parties would be any more closely aligned than the current system. The "if one starts to drift, you can move to teh [sic] next closest one" logic (if it actually worked) would apply to the current system as well.
In order to have an actual spectrum you would need a party for every major permutation of political view. The country where this is best approximated is Italy, home of the least functioning democracy ever. Of course, when you have multiple parties actually in power, you end up with coalition governments that have to compromise all of their values in order to get any policy enacted.
It’s a nice thought, but there is no magic solution to the basic problems of political representation. Sorry kid.
# posted by : 3:54 PM
: 3:54 PM
make up your mind.
In your first post you said there IS a way in a two party system to hold people accountable: "the couch vote." Then in your response to me you said that even a third party is NOT a way to hold people accountable.
Anyway, I agree that a 3rd communist party might not serve the function i was talking about. But you have to remember this post was in the context of a discussion of the 3 UK parties. Most of the LibDems' views are included in the other two party platforms, just in combinations. They often serve the function of capturing the 'pissed off vote' because they are closely aligned enough to the other parties to provide a viable alternative. Anyway, though they are not currently comptetative, they have been, and the three parties actually did serve to hold other parties positively accountable. Hense the rise of teh labour party.
Post a Comment
In your first post you said there IS a way in a two party system to hold people accountable: "the couch vote." Then in your response to me you said that even a third party is NOT a way to hold people accountable.
Anyway, I agree that a 3rd communist party might not serve the function i was talking about. But you have to remember this post was in the context of a discussion of the 3 UK parties. Most of the LibDems' views are included in the other two party platforms, just in combinations. They often serve the function of capturing the 'pissed off vote' because they are closely aligned enough to the other parties to provide a viable alternative. Anyway, though they are not currently comptetative, they have been, and the three parties actually did serve to hold other parties positively accountable. Hense the rise of teh labour party.
<< Home
