Hi David,
De : David L Wetzell <[email protected]>
À : [email protected]; EM <[email protected]>
Envoyé le : Mardi 7 février 2012 16h17
Objet : Re: Kevin V
dlw: I argue that the strength of the US presidency and regular presidential
elections has the effect of building up our two-party system.
>>>
>>>This is why I take as a given that there tend to be 2 bigger major parties
>>>and not as many serious candidates in "single-winner elections". This in
>>>turn tends to
>>>reduce the import of the diffs among the wide variety of single-winner
>>>elections.
>>
>>I think it works like this:
>>President isn't responsible to or chosen by Congress ->
>>There is not that much prize for having a majority of a house ->
>>Weak party discipline (because of less focus on party: a candidate can get
>>reelected even if his peers are unhappy) ->
>>If you are a viable candidate, there is no need for you to carve out a new
>>party. There is only room for two contenders per
>>race (under FPP), and there are two parties that will take you as long as you
>>can win for them.
>>
>>
>>dlw: Aye, but the prez election itself and its potential for coat-tails and
>>the reward from capturing one or both of the US legislatures
>>does build up the parties who can afford to run a serious prez election race.
>> I think some of the weak party discipline is also due to the restrictions on
>>donations to parties in the 1974 FEC act.
>>Our system wd function better if there was more intra-party discipline and
>>the donations flowed thru the relatively transparent venue of the party.
>
Personally I prefer weak party discipline. I like candidates to have
independence, with the decision-making power
less concentrated. And I'm suspicious of what party policies designed at the
national level would look like.
>
>
>>
>>KV: I think we could have three "parties" (if not a much greater variety of
>>viewpoints) with the right method. I wouldn't care
>>if they are actually parties or just a higher number of real choices, on
>>average, in a race.
>>
>>
>>dlw:Would it make a diff if our two major parties became two different major
>>parties, bridging the gap between the de facto center and the true center?
>>If American forms of PR were adopted so that there'd still be 2 major parties
>>per area, they wouldn't be the same 2 parties for all regions, which would
>>then enable minor parties
>>to contest the duopoly. And if this got complemented by a host of LTPs(with
>>coalitions) that specialized in contesting "more local" elections and voting
>>strategically together in "less local" elections,
>>along with other acts that hold elected officials accountable to their
>>promises then we'd have better quality choices, even if the quantity is less
>>than we'd prefer.
Yes, I think it would be useful if we could increase the incentive to stand at
the median, even if two "parties" maintained
their grip on things.
I don't find PR very interesting personally. It can be its own goal, but it
doesn't seem useful for the things I'm concerned
about.
Kevin
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
