On 02/19/2012 06:18 AM, Richard Fobes wrote:
I have in mind European parliaments where coalitions are typically needed.
In my opinion, coalitions require back-room compromises that most voters
would not like (if they knew what those compromises were).
I have not seen any parliamentary democracies in which voters are able
to elect problem-solving leaders. Instead, special-interest puppets are
elected.
More specifically, European politicians seem to be as clueless as U.S.
politicians about what is needed to "create jobs" and restore widespread
economic prosperity.
Let me just say that, as a Norwegian, that does not match my experience
at all.
Clearly, politics here isn't perfect. I would say that the current
coalition's largest member (the Labor Party) holds certain positions
about which the majority does not agree, and that said party uses its
power as "a majority of a majority" (i.e. the largest - majority - party
within the largest - majority - coalition) to push its own views through
even when they're unpopular.
(I'm thinking of the Labor Party accepting (de jure optional) European
Union regulations too readily, in particular, because the party likes
the idea of the EU even though the union has been growing steadily less
popular with the people due to the whole business with Greece.)
However, the coalition did manage to steer the country through the last
(European/American-induced) economic turbulence without too much
problem; and the Labor Party had to concede on some local-vs-central
issues because of the nature of coalition government, whereas they
probably would not have had to do so if they were the majority in a
two-party state.
Instead, I'd say that the European problem is that the ones in power are
trying to bite off too much. The European Union, in growing so quickly,
had to be built on compromise at all costs, and that compromise has led
to many solutions that only go some of the way. The Euro matter is a
good example: the management of the currency (along with attendant
financial policy) is partially centralized, partially decentralized, and
that doesn't work. They also have their undemocratic, bureaucrat-ruled
past to deal with, though they've come some way by giving some of the
Commission's power to the Parliament.
I agree that a lot can be accomplished without making this change.
I also agree that there are no "unchangeable" laws that would prevent
changing how voting is done in Congress.
Yet special interests -- i.e. the biggest campaign contributors -- will
never intentionally allow such changes -- because they know how to
control ("rig") the system under the current laws/rules.
That seems to say that you can't expect the rules to change to favor
third parties first, because under the current system, the campaign
contributors would want the status quo to prevail.
So you'd have to weaken the power of the campaign contributors. And how
would you do so? Perhaps by competition?
I guess the risky part would be that you get multipartyism, and then the
rules don't work, and then instead of the coalitions altering the rules
so that they *do* work (now that campaign contributors can't buy all the
parties off), the people say "oh, it's not working, let's return to the
old lesser-evil system -- at least that did work".
Is that something like what you're imagining?
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
