The Case for Political Diversity
There has been a great deal of talk lately- most of it predicated by John Kerry's incomprehensible thoughts, which his supporters seek to justify as being "subtle" rather than merely incoherent- about nuance. That is certainly a commodity sorely lacking in today's political economy.
The two-party system used to be at least a four-party system in practice. Besides liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans, we had liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. There are still a few of those around, but they have no influence in their national parties and they are chiefly of interest as objects of abuse for their more ideologically orthodox compatriots.
Canada, Britain, and most other liberal democracies have multiple parties. Perhaps only two of them have any real chance of winning. But the other parties influence public debate profoundly. Legislatively, they are powers to be reckoned with, and every election in every riding in Canada and constituency in Britain must take them seriously.
Canada is even flirting with a riff on a wonderful idea at one time utilized in a primitive form by two large American states for the lower houses of their legislatures. Both Massachusetts and Illinois once had multiple-member districts. At least in Illinois, every district in the House had two members from the majority party in that district, and one from the minority party. The relative strength of the parties was unaffected, but there was no voter in the state whose views were not represented by a representative of his or her party from his or her district.
Routinely, the most talented, productive, and valuable members of the House were those very "third members-" the "extra" Republican from, say, a district in Chicago, or the minority Democrat from some rural district Downstate. Moreover, the system made political parties more accountable in primary elections. Since each voter could cast three votes for one candidate, one and a half votes for two, or one vote for each of three, even the vaunted Daley Machine had its hands full in the face of a challenge. It was compelled by the math to urge its voters to divide their votes between the two Machine candidates; an anti-Machine challenger, on the other hand, could appeal to his supporters to give him all three votes. Thus, the Machine had to get twice as many people to vote their way as any challenger had to get to vote his, just to break even.
At least in matters concerning the State Legislature, you can be sure that the Daley Machine was sensitive to all voices in every district it controlled. Ironically, it was a Republican-led movement falsely arguing for economy (as predicted, a legislature with single-member districts proved just as expensive as one with multiple-member districts) that led in Illinois to the end of one of the most innovative and democratically empowering systems used by any state legislature.
Canada's proposed system will take a different route to diversity. It, too, would utilize multiple-member ridings. The difference would be that each party would win a percentage of the seats from that riding equivalent to the percentage of the vote it received.
If one starts with the premise that the more voices that are heard, the more democratic a system will be, this is surely a good idea. But unlike the system Illinois and Massachusetts used, such a system assumes a multiplicity of parties.
I would argue that a multiplicity of viable political parties would be a good thing- especially if voters were, after the Illinois model, permitted to proportionally distribute their vote more or less as they desired. People who are both pro-life and anti-gun, who are for a strong national defense but oppose capital punishment, or who take an almost infinite number of perfectly consistent and well-reasoned positions on the political spectrum not currently encompassed by our present, ideologically rigid two-party system, are also entitled to be heard.
Multiple-member districts even in Congress would be a good thing. Proportional voting would be a good thing. And so, I believe, would a working multi-party system be a good thing.
It hasn't led to paralysis in Canada or England. And at least from a conservative point of view, if it did, would a little government paralysis necessarily be a bad thing?
The two-party system used to be at least a four-party system in practice. Besides liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans, we had liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. There are still a few of those around, but they have no influence in their national parties and they are chiefly of interest as objects of abuse for their more ideologically orthodox compatriots.
Canada, Britain, and most other liberal democracies have multiple parties. Perhaps only two of them have any real chance of winning. But the other parties influence public debate profoundly. Legislatively, they are powers to be reckoned with, and every election in every riding in Canada and constituency in Britain must take them seriously.
Canada is even flirting with a riff on a wonderful idea at one time utilized in a primitive form by two large American states for the lower houses of their legislatures. Both Massachusetts and Illinois once had multiple-member districts. At least in Illinois, every district in the House had two members from the majority party in that district, and one from the minority party. The relative strength of the parties was unaffected, but there was no voter in the state whose views were not represented by a representative of his or her party from his or her district.
Routinely, the most talented, productive, and valuable members of the House were those very "third members-" the "extra" Republican from, say, a district in Chicago, or the minority Democrat from some rural district Downstate. Moreover, the system made political parties more accountable in primary elections. Since each voter could cast three votes for one candidate, one and a half votes for two, or one vote for each of three, even the vaunted Daley Machine had its hands full in the face of a challenge. It was compelled by the math to urge its voters to divide their votes between the two Machine candidates; an anti-Machine challenger, on the other hand, could appeal to his supporters to give him all three votes. Thus, the Machine had to get twice as many people to vote their way as any challenger had to get to vote his, just to break even.
At least in matters concerning the State Legislature, you can be sure that the Daley Machine was sensitive to all voices in every district it controlled. Ironically, it was a Republican-led movement falsely arguing for economy (as predicted, a legislature with single-member districts proved just as expensive as one with multiple-member districts) that led in Illinois to the end of one of the most innovative and democratically empowering systems used by any state legislature.
Canada's proposed system will take a different route to diversity. It, too, would utilize multiple-member ridings. The difference would be that each party would win a percentage of the seats from that riding equivalent to the percentage of the vote it received.
If one starts with the premise that the more voices that are heard, the more democratic a system will be, this is surely a good idea. But unlike the system Illinois and Massachusetts used, such a system assumes a multiplicity of parties.
I would argue that a multiplicity of viable political parties would be a good thing- especially if voters were, after the Illinois model, permitted to proportionally distribute their vote more or less as they desired. People who are both pro-life and anti-gun, who are for a strong national defense but oppose capital punishment, or who take an almost infinite number of perfectly consistent and well-reasoned positions on the political spectrum not currently encompassed by our present, ideologically rigid two-party system, are also entitled to be heard.
Multiple-member districts even in Congress would be a good thing. Proportional voting would be a good thing. And so, I believe, would a working multi-party system be a good thing.
It hasn't led to paralysis in Canada or England. And at least from a conservative point of view, if it did, would a little government paralysis necessarily be a bad thing?
Comments