Imagine a US parliamentary system

[Logoboros]

This is just a group thought experiment. If the U.S. suddenly transformed into a parliamentary system with more the five parties, what do you think that would look like? That is, what do you think the parties would be? Who would be in them? What kinds of coalitions would form? Who would be most powerful? Can you imagine any small regional parties that might be particularly powerful in your area, even if they would only be a blip on the national radar?

And, of course, what party would you belong to? If the parties are broken down along major issues (like the Environmental Party and the Gay and Lesbian Rights Party), how would you choose which party's candidates to vote for if you like both platforms but there's not a clear coalition? Well, maybe that question is getting a little grand -- we need to just define some parties first!

Anyway, let's set aside the practical political reasons why the U.S. wouldn't adopt this kind of system (at least, not in the foreseeable future). Let's just take the premise as a given and imagine what it could look like.

--Logoboros

[Wintermute]

Originally Posted by Logoboros

If the U.S. suddenly transformed into a parliamentary system with more the five parties, what do you think that would look like?

I would not want to see the US switch to a parlimentary system, but I would like to see the main two parties become one of many parties with equal power. It would be nice to have say at least 4 parties each with 25% of the vote.

[Silas Sparkhammer]

In previous discussions, I have been leery of a multi-party system of the Parliamentary type, because of the temptation toward deal-making and issue-swaps.

My usual example is the Greens and the Theocrats making a swap: the Theocrats would agree to vote against offshore oil drilling, and the Greens would vote to ban abortion. Each gets what it wants most, while surrendering on an issue that is secondary or even tertiary to them.

The overall effect, though, is that the will of the actual popular majority is denied. What the People would have voted for, if allowed to vote directly, would be negated.

(There is a game, called "Origins of World War Two," that simulates this effect in a spooky sort of way. The nations of the world expend diplomatic might to try to sway one another's control of various regions. The ostensible goal is to prevent Nazi Germany from taking Europe into war. But each nation has its own self-interest -- France wants Alsace-Lorraine; USSR wants the Baltic states; etc. -- and thus, while everyone is feathering his own nest, the necessary unity to oppose Nazism isn't assembled.)

A two party system, by producing the strongest possible opposition, permits meaningful opposition. Coalitions are too easily split, by offering them highly-valued, but relatively unimportant, concessions and bribes.

Special-interest parties are far too myopic to be trusted with public government.

Silas

[Logoboros]

Originally Posted by Silas Sparkhammer

A two party system, by producing the strongest possible opposition, permits meaningful opposition. Coalitions are too easily split, by offering them highly-valued, but relatively unimportant, concessions and bribes.

Special-interest parties are far too myopic to be trusted with public government.

Silas

But aren't the two parties already essentially coalitions of special interest groups? Only without transparency? And don't they create false opposition by limiting the possible platforms (i.e., the Libertarian's dilemma)?

[Silas Sparkhammer]

Originally Posted by Logoboros

But aren't the two parties already essentially coalitions of special interest groups? Only without transparency? And don't they create false opposition by limiting the possible platforms (i.e., the Libertarian's dilemma)?

Very true. And, in practice, the Democratic Party is fairly easy to split against itself, being a more diverse coalition. (Plus, right now, with a fairly weak Republican Party, the Democrats are undergoing "power vacuum" infighting.)

But the key to the two-party system is that the guys in the outhouse can unite, at need, to stop the most hateful of opposing legislation. It's a lot trickier when you have entirely separate party leadership, as unity first requires squabbling over leadership. It sort of "devolves" government into a system of "sub-governments."

("You can't call it the 'Green/Libertarian' partnership! It's the 'Libertarian/Green' partnership, or no deal!")

The existence of two large, almost "universal" parties, forces a moderation of their planks. It is often complained that the Democrats and Republicans are an awful lot alike. That's because they are trying to appeal to the same vast middle -- the hump in the bell curve. If you cut them apart into special interest parties, then this frees them to go "bottom feeding" on the extremes, the part where the curve gets small again.

("I have a theory on the Brontosaur....")

MPs who exist solely for a special purpose will be subject to institutional monomania. MPs who exist to serve their entire community will tend to be more moderate, and to see the larger picture.

In Arizona, some years ago, a bunch of pro-lifers got elected, and vowed to shut down state government until abortion was banned. They refused to vote for any state budget, etc. But, as time passed, and as abortion was not banned, some of them awakened to their larger duty: to represent the people of their district in all things, not just in abortion. And so, a few at a time, they turned away from that vow, and undertook the task of legislation in a more responsible fashion.

This *might* be a general rule. It might turn out that special-interest MPs would learn what Spider-Man teaches us: "With great power comes great responsibility." But...I'm afraid I don't quite believe it.

Silas ("O that this too too solid South would melt...")

[TallGeekyGirl]

I would be in the Very Silly Party, and my candidate would be Malcolm Peter Brian Telescope Adrian Umbrella Stand Jasper Wednesday (pops mouth twice) Stoatgobbler John Raw Vegetable (sound effect of horse whinnying) Arthur Norman Michael (blows squeaker) Featherstone Smith (blows whistle) Northgot Edwards Harris (fires pistol, then 'whoop') Mason (chuff-chuff-chuff-chuff) Frampton Jones Fruitbat Gilbert (sings) 'We'll keep a welcome in the' (three shots, stops singing) Williams If I Could Walk That Way Jenkin (squeaker) Tiger-drawers Pratt Thompson (sings) 'Raindrops Keep Falling On My Head' Darcy Carter (horn) Pussycat (sings) 'Don't Sleep In The Subway' Barton Mainwaring (hoot, 'whoop') Smith

[PatYoung]

I think we are more likely to see regional parties, no matter what their names might be)
Five parties:
Northeast Party
Southern Party (currently called the GOP)
Midwest Party
Mountain State Party
West Coast Party

[Dactyl]

Originally Posted by Silas Sparkhammer

In previous discussions, I have been leery of a multi-party system of the Parliamentary type, because of the temptation toward deal-making and issue-swaps.

Am I correct in thinking:

- that the US Congess isn't legally limited to two parties by law? There could, in theory, be many parties.

-that the US uses the FPTP system to elect Congressmen?

In which case, aren't the lower houses of both our countries basically run under the same system?

Originally Posted by Jahungo

I've actually thought an interesting thing to largely keep our presidential system but move away from the two-party system would be to simply switch electoral vote distribution in the presidential election from winner-take-all for a state to proportional allocation per a state. A president has to have an absolute majority of electoral votes to be elected, so this potentially could let third parties play a meaningful role in the presidential selection process.

IMHO, Instant-runoff voting is a better way to encourage more parties and more choice.

[lord_feldon]

Originally Posted by Dactyl

Am I correct in thinking:

- that the US Congess isn't legally limited to two parties by law? There could, in theory, be many parties.

-that the US uses the FPTP system to elect Congressmen?

Correct on both counts, although I believe there are significant hurdles in some states for third party candidates.

[BringTheNoise]

Originally Posted by Silas Sparkhammer

In previous discussions, I have been leery of a multi-party system of the Parliamentary type, because of the temptation toward deal-making and issue-swaps.

My usual example is the Greens and the Theocrats making a swap: the Theocrats would agree to vote against offshore oil drilling, and the Greens would vote to ban abortion. Each gets what it wants most, while surrendering on an issue that is secondary or even tertiary to them.

The overall effect, though, is that the will of the actual popular majority is denied. What the People would have voted for, if allowed to vote directly, would be negated.

Silas

Has most of the rest of the world already succumbed or is America specifically unable to handle more than two viable parties?

[Silas Sparkhammer]

Originally Posted by Dactyl

Am I correct in thinking:

- that the US Congess isn't legally limited to two parties by law? There could, in theory, be many parties.

-that the US uses the FPTP system to elect Congressmen?

In which case, aren't the lower houses of both our countries basically run under the same system?

True; there is no legal limit to two parties. There are, however, some institutionalized structures that heavily limit third parties: fund-raising laws, required signatures, etc.

I had to look up FPTP -- First Past the Post -- and I don't believe that's what we use. I'm pretty sure that U.S. elections, in most districts, are based on 50% + 1. If no one gets an actual majority, we hold second-round run-offs between the top two vote-getters.

IMHO, Instant-runoff voting is a better way to encourage more parties and more choice.

There are ways it can break down and give uncomfortable results, such as elevating the people's second choice to the victory. Of course, every voting system has flaws.

Originally Posted by BringTheNoise

Has most of the rest of the world already succumbed or is America specifically unable to handle more than two viable parties?

Well, a lot of my viewpoint was formed watching those long, bad years when the Israeli Knesset had two 48% parties and a 3% party of religious extremists, who, in practice, had almost total control by dint of their power to elevate the party of their choice to majority status. To me, that is the single most frightening thing about the Parliamentary System: the tail can gain almost despotic control over the dog!

The U.S. political psychology has been deeply polarized from very near the beginning. Federalists and Anti-Federalists, and, over time, their partisan descendants, have very often shared nearly equal numbers. I don't know if the U.S. is really any more innately polarized than other countries, but it seems to be the case.

One sad symptom of this is the U.S. rejection of meaningful compromise. We just don't like it. We treat politics more like a football game: one winner, one loser. Parliamentary systems are better adapted (it seems to me) at cranking a proposal through the meat-grinder until it has taken on a mealy kind of moderation. That's a good thing, in my opinion. I wish the U.S. had the mind-set of embracing compromise.

But many of our hot issues just don't have intermediate stances. With regard to abortion, for instance, there just isn't any "middle ground." We had to go to war over slavery; we could not find a peaceful solution!

Perhaps its our cowboy "gunfight" mentality, but, as this is our mind-set, I think we are best served by a system that acknowledges our deep divisions, rather than by one which would (in my opinion) be (more!) susceptible to manipulation.

(It's bad enough that our Congress is "multi-party" to the degree that members are bought and paid for by special interests!)

Silas

[Dactyl]

Originally Posted by Silas Sparkhammer

I had to look up FPTP -- First Past the Post -- and I don't believe that's what we use. I'm pretty sure that U.S. elections, in most districts, are based on 50% + 1. If no one gets an actual majority, we hold second-round run-offs between the top two vote-getters.

According to Wikipedia FPTP is the system that the US uses in most cases. However, when there are only two parties running FPTP requires a 50% majority.

[Mad Jay]

I think if the US was a parliamentary system, there would be regional parties which would form 2 coalitions that look very similar to what we have now. However, the fights would be at a much more grassroots level that where it is now.

Originally Posted by Silas Sparkhammer

But many of our hot issues just don't have intermediate stances. With regard to abortion, for instance, there just isn't any "middle ground." We had to go to war over slavery; we could not find a peaceful solution!

Silas

I think that is the result of having a two-part democracy, rather than the cause of it. One of the tactics that US politicians like to play is "demonize the opponent". If someone is for choice in abortion within certain limits, it's very easy to brand him as a baby-killer, truth be damned. If there are 6 people running against you, you'll be spending a lot of resources running a negative campaign against all of them

[Jahungo]

Originally Posted by Mad Jay

I think that is the result of having a two-part democracy, rather than the cause of it. One of the tactics that US politicians like to play is "demonize the opponent". If someone is for choice in abortion within certain limits, it's very easy to brand him as a baby-killer, truth be damned. If there are 6 people running against you, you'll be spending a lot of resources running a negative campaign against all of them

Not only is it easier for an individual to run negative ads against only one opponent, a two-party system sets up a scenario where the other party is always the bad guy. In a multi-party system, chances are there will be some issue where you need the support of the other parties, so you can't be as strongly against one party.

But just look at the way some of the Republicans are rooting against the Obama administration. In some ways it makes sense, since a loss for a Democrats is, politically at least, a win for the Republicans. That's not always going to be the case when there's more parties. At the very least, it won't be that simple.

[lord_feldon]

Originally Posted by Silas Sparkhammer

I'm pretty sure that U.S. elections, in most districts, are based on 50% + 1. If no one gets an actual majority, we hold second-round run-offs between the top two vote-getters.

I know it's not the case in Ohio (Mary Jo Kilroy won in her district with only around 45%).

It doesn't appear to be the case in California, either, at least for House elections.

ETA: Apparently California does runoffs for special elections, but not the general.

Or Colorado

[BamaRainbow]

Originally Posted by Silas Sparkhammer

(There is a game, called "Origins of World War Two," that simulates this effect in a spooky sort of way. The nations of the world expend diplomatic might to try to sway one another's control of various regions. The ostensible goal is to prevent Nazi Germany from taking Europe into war. But each nation has its own self-interest -- France wants Alsace-Lorraine; USSR wants the Baltic states; etc. -- and thus, while everyone is feathering his own nest, the necessary unity to oppose Nazism isn't assembled.)

Silas

This might be a bit of a hijack, but, um, this game sounds really odd, if not historically stupid. France had regained Alsace-Lorraine at the end of WWI so it couldn't "want" something it already had. (OTOH, France had a nominal control of the Saarland from 1920 to 1935 and the region was valued for its mineral deposits, especially coal, so France might have wanted that territory.)

[Silas Sparkhammer]

Originally Posted by BamaRainbow

This might be a bit of a hijack, but, um, this game sounds really odd, if not historically stupid. France had regained Alsace-Lorraine at the end of WWI so it couldn't "want" something it already had. (OTOH, France had a nominal control of the Saarland from 1920 to 1935 and the region was valued for its mineral deposits, especially coal, so France might have wanted that territory.)

The game covers the period during which these things happen. It is somewhat simplified, and, obviously, presents things from the designer's historical perspective, but it is NOT "historically stupid."

It definitely is "really odd." It isn't a "war game" really, although it resembles one, but a diplomatic and negotiating game. It's more historically realistic than, say, "Diplomacy," the Archduke of all negotiating games.

If you were actually to look at a copy of the game, you would understand more about it.

Silas

[BamaRainbow]

Originally Posted by Silas Sparkhammer

The game covers the period during which these things happen. It is somewhat simplified, and, obviously, presents things from the designer's historical perspective, but it is NOT "historically stupid."

It definitely is "really odd." It isn't a "war game" really, although it resembles one, but a diplomatic and negotiating game. It's more historically realistic than, say, "Diplomacy," the Archduke of all negotiating games.

If you were actually to look at a copy of the game, you would understand more about it.

Silas

Silas, sorry if I stepped on toes or something, but when *you* mentioned that the GAME is called "Origins of World War Two" and one of the game positions mentions that (as you specifically noted in your original comment) "France wants Alsace-Lorraine", then the game IS historically stupid. France HAD Alsace-Lorraine as a result of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 (Louis XIV gained the region for France as a result of the 1697 Treaty of Ryswick; the region was turned over to Germany under the terms of the 1871 Treaty of Frankfurt, following the Franco-Prussian War) and if this game had been the "Origins of World War One," then France's wanting the region would be sensible. I stand behind my claim of the game's historical stupidity (unless, of course, the game makes no assertion of France's wanting A-L, and that was something that you ascribed to the game).
The origins of WWII, as most people understand them, began with the terms of the peace treaties and punishments that Imperial Germany was forced to sign and endure. I'll allow that some historians treat the entire 1914-1945 period as a single conflict with the November 1918 armistice starting a two-decade "break" but the direct origins of WWII really didn't get underway until the onset of the Great Depression. If you want to say that the game is "somewhat simplified" when a definitely historically INaccurate fact is offered as an "origin", fine, go for it. I'll stick with my belief that the game is historically stupid, and I really don't care if historical inaccuracy is done from "the designer's historical perspective" because it's still wrong. (If you want to give the designer a real "out" and let this be an alternate reality where, for some reason, the French didn't get A-L back in 1919 so that way France could "want" A-L, then fine.)
But, if the rest of the game is rife with similar historical inaccuracies, I think I'll pass on it. A book on "World War Two for Dummies" sounds like it would be far more accurate.

[Silas Sparkhammer]

Originally Posted by BamaRainbow

Silas, sorry if I stepped on toes or something, but when *you* mentioned that the GAME is called "Origins of World War Two" and one of the game positions mentions that (as you specifically noted in your original comment) "France wants Alsace-Lorraine", then the game IS historically stupid.

Read the game, please. You have crossed the line from being ignorant to being offensive.

Silas

[Dara bhur gCara]

Originally Posted by Silas Sparkhammer

My usual example is the Greens and the Theocrats making a swap: the Theocrats would agree to vote against offshore oil drilling, and the Greens would vote to ban abortion. Each gets what it wants most, while surrendering on an issue that is secondary or even tertiary to them.

Wouldn't the Greens, like most environmentalists, likely believe that the most pressing environmental issue in the world is over-population? Which a ban on abortion is unlikely to be helpful towards solving, is it?