VC NEWS
Is A Multiparty System Right For America?
by, Nancy Hunt, Editor
Is a multiparty system right for America? In America we have a two-party system, democratic and republican. Many other countries have more than two parties. For example, Italy has nine national parties and several regional parties including the Christian Democrats, the Socialists, the Radicals, the Liberals, and the Proletarial Unity Party. Israel has more than twenty parties. In these mulitparty systems much of the work of pary leaders involves bulding coalitions with other parties to vote for or against proposed legislation.
In the United States nearly all elections are popularity based. Proportional representation (PR) is based on the principle that any group of like-minded voters should win legislative seats in proportion to its share of the popular vote. Whereas the winner-take-all principle awards 100 percent of the representation to a 50.1 percent majority, PR allows voters in a minority to win their fair share of representation.
There are three failures to the PR system:
*Members of racial and ethnic minorities are underrepresented;
* Voters' choices are restricted to candidates within the two-party, Republican/Democratic
monopoly;
* Most legislative elections are effectively "no-choice" contests
in districts dominated by a single party.
Many Americans believe that a multiparty system would be unwieldy. How would we deal with one separate party for each minority in America, one separate party for each religous group, one separte party for each age group, and so on? If this was so, the President would not be able to get any legislation passed. He would have to build coalition of several parties. Every time one paty pulled out of the coalition, the attempted legislation would fail. We would end up with a powerless president and a powerless Congress.
New parties started up in America in the 1960's. These new parties are
almost completely shut out of representation. Minority party candidates
cannot build or sustain support in winner-take-all elections unless it
is geographically concentrated.
Most winner-take-all elections is not only a popularity contest, but a
clear majority of voters prefers one party's political philosophy to that
of the other party.
Support for PR as an alternative to winner-take-all politics has come from a diverse and distinguished group, including the most outspoken early supporter, John Stuart Mill, in his "Representative Government" (1861). Mill's most important contribution to the case for PR was his argument that majority rule itself is improved by full minority representation. By maximizing the number of voters who elect candidates, Mill pointed out that PR increases the chances that a legislative majority has support from a majority of voters; it is required for full representation, with voters having the power to elect representative reflecting a range of opinion; and it fosters a deliberative legislative process which improves the majority view by ensuring that minority opinions are represented and heard.
Majority rule is also undercut by winner-take-all elections because they drive voters into two camps. But two-choice electins obscure shades of difference and create the illusion of majority support for the winner. Mill stressed the importance of voters having a full range of choices and representation of their different communities of interest.
Mill also argued that PR is important for majority interests because it provides represented minorities with a platform to challenge conventional wisdom.
Four other reasons for PR:
1. PR increases voter turnout.
2. PR provides better representation for racial minorities.
3. PR increases the number of women in office.
4. PR ends gerrymandering.
PR is fundamentally non-partisan. Voters can support greater democracy or feel poorly represented by winner-take-all elections. In a two-party system, conservatives can create an electoral majority with a set of positions that can be opposed by the majority of voters, but bring together fervent minorities willing to accept positions they oppose in exchange for support for their issue
With electable choices, a multiparty system based on PR would allow us to find out where the American people really stand, and on many issue, they arguably will stand to the left of current policy. Some people will confuse PR with parliamentary government, although PR directly affects only how one elects a legislature, not governmental structure.
In the 1990's there were some developments that worked well with simple
staturtory changes. These developments include:
*Winner-take-all politics cannot be fixed.
* Other reforms face barriers.
* The opportunity to build a powerful coalition
There are some familiar objections to PR systems:
*Political instability.
*Excessive gridlock.
*Loss of district representation..
Source: http://www.bostonreview.net/BR23.1/richie.html
"America at Odds The Essentials" second edition by, Beth Henschen
and Edward Sidlow