Dick Meyer, Scripps Washington Bureau (TNS):
Unfortunately, we assume the two-party system permanent and unalterable.
But the very phrase — “two-party system” — is a misnomer. Nothing in the Constitution sanctions a two-party system. The two-party duopoly is an accident of history, not the work of the framers.
My list of complaints is long: They have created a primary system so prolonged that elected officials are usually in campaign mode; they ceded the power to select and finance candidates and so have little power over their caucuses in Congress; they don’t recruit and promote the best and brightest; they have lost the trust and loyalty of voters.
But my chief gripe is that they have made it nearly impossible for a third party or an independent presidential candidate to have a fighting chance. They literally have committed a crime of anti-trust by conspiring to secure a two party monopoly on political power. This is their great and legal scandal.
He goes on to write:
A successful third party is feasible. Rarely has there been a better opportunity. In most recent elections there has been some third party spasm, however quixotic: John Anderson, Ross Perot, Unity ‘08 and Americans Elect in 2012. It is weird that nothing is cooking this round.
Why is 2016 ripe? Thanks to the Roberts court, the economics of American elections have been deregulated. It would be easy to finance a third party campaign. It might be unsavory and against the spirit of reform, but it would be easy. A couple hundred million dollars would fund a competitive campaign.
Is there any doubt, for example, that the Koch network could manufacture a credible third-party ticket in 2016? None. It would have a clear libertarian ideology, a ready-made platform, a grassroots network and the best polling, data mining, marketing, and dirty tricks money could by. Remember, David Koch was the Libertarian VP candidate in 1980.
Here is the other reason: There have never been more voters who call themselves Independents. Flipping it, there have never been fewer Democrats and Republicans. The average favorability rating of the two parties combined has been declining on the same steep line as evening news ratings and typewriter sales.
Dick Meyer is Chief Washington Correspondent for the Scripps Washington Bureau and DecodeDC (www.newsnet5.com/decodedc). Readers may send him email at [email protected].
Thanks to John Carey for sending the link to IPR via email and Ballot Access News.
I happen to like that idea (Andy C and Richard Winger are more into national popular vote, which I’m not) but we were talking voting calculation .. some people like IRV, others approval voting, etc.
You might be right. Proportional representation by state in the electoral college could help a third-party candidate.
Often when pointing to Canada and Britain you’ll get some response to the effect of them being parliamentary systems unlike the US. Which is irrelevant when it comes to all three using single-member FPTP. We might have an independently elected executive and so no formal coalition governments, but a third party could hold the balance of power in the U.S. House as easily it could a Westminster Parliament.
The first part is obvious; the second, far less so.
The obvious answer is to end the pluraity rule and move to instant runoff voting.
Just so we are all clear that it’s at least possible that the duopoly in the US may not last, just as it did npt in the UK and Canada. Sure, there’s a tendency, but it’s not impossible to overcome, and the US may change in this regard just as other countries did, which have the same issue with their electoral systems.
You quoted Richard Winger: “Duvergers’ Law says countries without proportional representation always have two-party systems,”
But according to Wikipedia, “In political science, Duverger’s law is a principle that asserts that plurality rule elections structured within single-member districts TEND TO favor a two-party system.” [emphasis by capitals mine]
This amounts to a form of straw-man argument, to misrepresent what somebody said. “tend to” and “always have” are different.
Is this what Dick Meyer had in mind?
http://portlandtribune.com/pt/9-news/269163-143678-independent-party-may-gain-major-party-status
This article makes it clear that he means a third party that is overall competitive with the existing big two. He’s well aware that smaller parties currently exist.
Donald Trump Jr. would be the more obvious choice for this. His current wife is not US-born, iirc.
Jim, as Richard Winger pointed out on another thread on IPR today:
Readers may find it interesting to compare the successes of the Scottish Nationalists SNP) and the United Kingdom independence Party (UKIP) on the last British election. The SNP got many more seats in Parliament but had many fewer votes.
“And I’m well aware of Duverger’s law. Notice it includes words like tend to favor and tend to and often develops. Thus exceptions are possible.”
I think the meager exceptions prove the rule true. You don’t explain why the exceptions are exceptions. There are (at least) three major clues in the Wikipedia article: “Gerrymandering is sometimes used to counteract such geographic difficulties in local politics but is controversial on a large scale.” and “In India, there are thirty-eight political parties represented in the Parliament. Like the UK and Canada, India has a winner-takes-all system”, and “These counterexamples are partly due to the effect of smaller parties that have the majority of their support concentrated in a small number of electorates rather than diluted across many electorates. William H. Riker noted that strong regional parties can distort matters, leading to more than two parties receiving seats in the national legislature, even if there are only two parties competitive in any single district.”
India, for example, is said to be populated by people who speak dozens (hundreds?) of different languages. See: https://www.google.com/search?q=indian+languages+map&espv=2&biw=1600&bih=799&tbm=isch&imgil=ethqorjGMM2ZcM%253A%253Bvi68NQQx2-7cxM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fccat.sas.upenn.edu%25252Fplc%25252Fclpp%25252Fimages%25252Flangmaps%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=ethqorjGMM2ZcM%253A%252Cvi68NQQx2-7cxM%252C_&usg=__FMpdT_dpaZWSBzblLSaCi7nacrk%3D&ved=0CCsQyjdqFQoTCN2i08-YpMcCFRIsiAod8lQJxQ&ei=4ZLLVZ2uDJLYoATyqaWoDA#imgrc=ethqorjGMM2ZcM%3A&usg=__FMpdT_dpaZWSBzblLSaCi7nacrk%3D ”
If ‘political party’ was virtually synonymous with ‘region’, and assuming that electoral maps were draw to cover the regions, you’d get a system where seemingly small parties are stable. The clue above, having to do with “gerrymandering”, illustratrates the point well. If, for an extreme example, a given state was separated into regions (down to the house) by the preferred political party of the person living there, this would be described as an extreme example of ‘gerrymandering’, but nevertheless it would allow for minor parties to be stable. But nobody does that!
The fact that “Thus exceptions are possible.” doesn’t mean that they are generally possible in, say, America. Thus my point is made: The law applies, in spades, and it almost always prevents third-parties from flourishing. So, a solution must be found. Merely stating that exceptions are possible is virtually meaningless.,
We *have* third parties, three of them, and a bunch of fourth parties that do not make it into third-party ranks.
A modest obstacle to third parties is columnists who pretend that they do not already exist.
As Mr Trump is showing. there is also room for a populist third party as well as libertarian, progressive, and Christian Nationalist third parties that are already here.
The sore loser law issue is readily finessed by Trump. In some states his wife (I believe his daughter is too young) is the candidate. Alternatively, he makes clear that if he is not on the ballot he is ready to go with ad campaigns trashing the Republicans.
Oh what the hell, I’ll play fetch for you. I don’t generally do that but here you go. Richard wrote
And
Yeah, I wouldn’t worry about that. I go to BAN all the time as do many people here. It’s fine.
And I’m well aware of Duverger’s law. Notice it includes words like tend to favor and tend to and often develops. Thus exceptions are possible.
When I accessed that link, McAfee Site Advisor told me:
” Warning: Trouble ahead
Whoa!
Are you sure you want to go there?
http://ballot-access.org/2015/08/09/dick-meyer-scr… may be risky to visit.
Why are you seeing this?
When we visited this site, we found it exhibited one or more risky behaviors.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
“In political science, Duverger’s law is a principle that asserts that plurality rule elections structured within single-member districts tend to favor a two-party system. This is one of two hypotheses proposed by Duverger, the second stating that “the double ballot majority system and proportional representation tend to multipartism.”[1]”
“The discovery of this tendency is attributed to Maurice Duverger, a French sociologist who observed the effect and recorded it in several papers published in the 1950s and 1960s. In the course of further research, other political scientists began calling the effect a “law” or principle. Duverger’s law suggests a nexus or synthesis between a party system and an electoral system: a proportional representation (PR) system creates the electoral conditions necessary to foster party development while a plurality system marginalizes many smaller political parties, resulting in what is known as a two-party system.”
“A two-party system often develops in a plurality voting system. In this system, voters have a single vote, which they can cast for a single candidate in their district, in which only one legislative seat is available. In plurality voting (i.e. first past the post), in which the winner of the seat is determined purely by the candidate with the most votes, several characteristics can serve to discourage the development of third parties and reward the two major parties.”
“Duverger suggests two reasons this voting system favors a two-party system. One is the result of the “fusion” (or an alliance very much like fusion) of the weak parties, and the other is the “elimination” of weak parties by the voters, by which he means that voters gradually desert the weak parties on the grounds that they have no chance of winning.[2][3]”
“A prominent restrictive feature unique to this system is purely statistical. Because the system gives only the winner in each district a seat, a party which consistently comes third in every district will not gain any seats in the legislature, even if it receives a significant proportion of the vote. This puts geographically thinly spread parties at a significant disadvantage. An example of this is the Liberal Democrats in the United Kingdom, whose proportion of seats in the legislature is significantly less than their proportion of the national vote. The Green Party of Canada is also a good example. The party received approximately 5% of the popular vote from 2004 to 2011 but had only won one seat (out of 308) in the House of Commons in the same span of time. Another example was seen in the 1992 U.S. presidential election, when Ross Perot’s candidacy received zero electoral votes despite getting 19% of the popular vote. Gerrymandering is sometimes used to counteract such geographic difficulties in local politics but is controversial on a large scale. These numerical disadvantages can create an artificial limit on the level at which a third party can engage in the political process.”
Deterred yes. Impossible no. I gave you a specific reference; follow the link and read Richard Winger’s comments on his own story there for some of the direct answers to your questions.
Paulie: Could you be more specific about the cite which states what you claim? My understanding is that third and fourth-parties are, at least, very strongly deterred. Do you believe that they are not in reality deterred?
It’s possible to have 3+ parties under first past the post. There are examples both in game theory and actual historical examples. See Richard Winger’s comments in the discussion on the BAN version of this story for some examples.
http://ballot-access.org/2015/08/09/dick-meyer-scripps-howard-writer-says-u-s-needs-a-three-party-system/#comments
People here don’t seem to understand WHY the American system doesn’t, in practice, ‘allow’ a third (or fourth, etc) party system.
Hey, guys, it’s THIS! The system used is called “first past the post”, in which all power is given to the highest vote-getter. The Founding Fathers didn’t understand this, but choosing that system provides an extremely high deterrent that can only in very rare cases be breached.
To truly fix the system will require a change in the voting system. Proportional votes, 1st choice and 2nd choice, etc.
And of course those of us here often have all seen the stats on growing frustration with both establishment parties, growing numbers of people identifying as independents and saying they want a new generic major party, etc.
See: http://fee.org/anythingpeaceful/detail/america-isnt-getting-more-liberal-its-getting-more-libertarian for lots of details on why.
Compare that 2.5 to 3 million dollars they spent in 1980 with the billion they are spending this cycle. Even with inflation that’s two orders of magnitude difference. Given that 60% now want a generic alt party, if someone pumped a billion into one it could very well take off. And a soft-libertarian party could easily fit the bill.
When I became active in the libertarian faction of Young Americans for Freedom in 1969, Charles Koch was the most significant financial backer of a variety of libertarian projects. His own pet project at the time was the Center for Independent Education, promoting alternatives to government-managed schools. Charles Koch also contributed to Rampart College, Institute for Humane Studies, and to the conferences organized by the California Libertarian Alliance.
In 1973, with the death of F.A. Harper, Charles Koch increased funding for the Institute for Humane Studies. At the same time Koch began putting money into the Libertarian Party. Koch provided initial funding for the Cato Institute and the Council for a Competitive Economy and, in the late 1970s the Ed Clark for Governor campaign in California.
In 1980 David Koch ran for Vice-President on the Libertarian ticket with Ed Clark, because the Supreme Court had ruled that a candidate can spend unlimited amounts of his own money on his own campaign for office. It is estimated that David Koch put 2.5 to 3 million dollars into the Clark campaign, with the expectation of getting 3 to 4 million votes and establishing a three-party system.
Following the 1980 campaign, Koch funded Dick Randolph’s campaign for Governor of Alaska, in which he polled 15% – less than they were expecting. Following the failure to elect Randolph, the Koch operation began experimenting with running libertarian candidates in Republican primaries – in 1986 Dick Randolph ran for Governor of Alaska in the Republican primary, to set an example.
In the 1990s, the Clinton administration began intense IRS audits and other regulatory harassment of Koch Industries. When Koch operatives contacted Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas to seek help in dealing with regulatory issues, Dole’s office pointed out that the Kochs were not on their contributor list, and basically extorted money in the form of campaign contributions.
With the failure to make The Libertarian Party into a major party, followed by the failure to establish a libertarian faction in the Republican Party, the Kochs began to back a variety of Republican candidates with the hope of stopping regulatory harassment by Democrats, and that has led to their current importance in the Republican Party.
“In the legal framework of the Citizens United decision and the political climate of growing frustration with the establishment political parties, and more people iddentifying as independents and expressing desire for a generic third party, the wealth of the Kochs and their willingness to spend it on political issues could combine to create a truly competitve third party. One of the Kochs already showed his willingness to break with the duopoly by running as the LP VP candidate in 1980, and they still adhere to the same beliefs they did when they were funding and running with the LP back in the mid to late 1970s and early 1980s. They are a lot wealthier now and the new rules of campaign finance that have evolved since then, plus the greater willingness of the general public to at least in theory break with duopoly voting, means that I (original author) believe that if they gave it a go they can create a competitive alt party now, unlike what happened in 1980.”
I’m not saying I necessariy agree, but I think that’s more along the lines of what he meant there.
I think you misunderstood that part. In my next comment I will paraphrase what I think the author meant.
The 1980 campaign is an odd thing to point to to bolster the assertion that there is “[no doubt that] the Koch network could manufacture a credible third-party ticket in 2016.” Given that pretty much everybody, including the Kochs, took the exact opposite lesson from it.
> “Is there any doubt, for example, that the Koch network could manufacture a credible third-party ticket in 2016? None. It would have a clear libertarian ideology, a ready-made platform, a grassroots network and the best polling, data mining, marketing, and dirty tricks money could by. Remember, David Koch was the Libertarian VP candidate in 1980.” <
I have read several criticisms of the Kock Brothers, mostly from left wing, ultra-liberal sources.
Does anyone have any references from bona-fide Libertarian sources on them?