The most notable fact about this article is that no surveys asked whether respondents want parties to exist at all or, if they exist, to be treated by governments as anything other than voluntary associations.
Exactly, Jonathon! Political parties are the root cause of polarization. Election cycles that exchange them at regular frequency don't help either! Please see my comment above.
This is really helpful. My take on how to get there: In order for reform to work, there are some issues that need to be dealt with: the way campaigns are financed, which allows wealthy corporations and people to heavily influence the outcomes; the stronghold the two existing parties have over the narrative and funding and support for candidates. Both of these make it almost impossible for non-party-line candidates to be elected. If we could establish reforms over finance (overturn Citizens United, for example), election season length (it's unhelpful for people to start talking about the next presidential election in the first month of a new administration), primary timing (what if we had all primaries on the same day?), electoral college... then it would be easier to allow additional parties to realistically have a chance to form and compete. Also, more focus should be put on local and state elections. If a third party appears only in national elections, it's a spoiler. If they can get elected in mayoral, state legislative positions, more people will know what their policies are.
My question to all: Is there a model with proportional representation has districts (even multi member districts) so that the voter has a sense of personal or geographic connection with those elected?
I am writing from New Zealand, which uses the MMP system of proportional representation. I understand that Germany uses a similar system. In New Zealand, there is a great deal of discontent with the MMP system. You can get a feeling for the discontent in New Zealand by visiting this political comment website: https://www.brashandmitchell.com/post/peter-williams-my-vote-needs-a-home
According to Google AI “German politics is significantly polarised, driven by the rise of populist parties, deep economic and regional divides, and intense emotional resentment between political camps. Over 81% of people in Germany perceive society as divided.”
In New Zealand, I believe the discontent arises because minor parties negotiate “deals” with the major party after an election to enable the major party to govern. Unpopular and divisive minor party policies are supported by the major party in return for the minor party agreeing to support the major party’s policies. This results in the unpopular minor party policies being rammed through our parliament. Proportional representation may have worked in less divided times, but it’s not suited to the polarized societies we live in now.
My guess is that discontent with proportional representation is not limited to New Zealand and Germany. My conclusion is that democracies around the world are failing because:
Competing political parties + Cyclic elections =
Economic waste + Social turmoil + Inability to implement long-term plans
Your ideas about constitutional engineering are worth serious consideration, Cliff. In this forum my comment was limited to one observation: that (except for questions about top-two primaries) polling on political parties seems to be imposing on respondents an assumption that they have not agreed to, namely that political parties should exist and be constitutionally or legislatively recognized and/or regulated. This is like asking respondents whether the President should be elected by universal popular vote, which imposes the assumption that the President should exist. It is unfair to respondents to ask for their opinions while implicitly forcing higher-level opinions on them. As an engineer, you know the necessity of testing the edge cases. The analog here is to allow for edge cases when formulating survey questions. If you ask whether the top income-tax rate should be higher, lower, or stay the same, ensure that respondents who believe there should be no top rate, or who believe there should be no income tax, or who believe there should be no money, can answer.
Yes, I think we need to approach democracy from a clean slate point of view. New Zealand, a small country which led the world with votes for women, would be an ideal size of democracy to experiment with, but the majority of people here seem to be as fixated with the need for political parties as everywhere else. I think this fixation is based on the idea that humans need to be competitive in wealth accumulation, in business, in sport and you name it. While previously a competitive businessman, at the age of 79, I have concluded that competitiveness is a terribly harmful human trait that we should endeavor to get rid of. Getting it out of our democratic systems would be an excellent place to start!
You say “the majority of people here seem to be as fixated with the need for political parties as everywhere else”. They may seem to be, but maybe they are not. Polling could help us find out. But, if it merely assumes that people believe parties are necessary, it will not ask the questions that would test that assumption.
It is completely understandable why so many Americans feel exhausted by the traditional two-party system, especially when political gridlock dominates headlines. While people agree that the current dynamic is broken, agreeing on a viable alternative—like ranked-choice voting or coalition building—is where the real debate begins. Even when looking for local public information or using a https://renvillecountyjailroster.org people just want simple, reliable systems that actually serve the public interest. Until voters unite around a single alternative framework, we are likely stuck navigating the exact same electoral trade-offs.
I've long come to the conclusion that the universe and everything in it works on a binary polarity.
Male / female, yin / yang, positive /negative.
I think that the dual party system is a representation of that phenomenon.
I've written this before, but I'll retype it for clarity.
The Left are primarily made up of "highly agreeable" people. That's the proper psychological term. This means that the Left is made up of people who prefer to say 'yes' to ideas rather than 'no. This openness makes them very good at coming up with ideas and solutions.
Unfortunately, people who say yes too often are not good at IMPLEMENTING those ideas because they choose a 'yes' at critical junctures where a 'no' would be a better option, and so poor implementation creates new, unexpected problems.
Think of the Left as the artists and dreamers. Great at using their imagination, but terrible at managing those ideas.
Or think of the Left when they allow Liberal immigration policies because they feel empathy for suffering immigrants, but immigration policies have created their own new problems that now need addressing, as witnessed in real time.
----------
The Right are primarily made up of "highly DIS-agreeable" people. These people much prefer saying 'no' because they are conservative with their approach. They don't want to create a new problem. This makes them GREAT at effective idea implementation, but not so good at coming up with the ideas.
They make great managers, but may be a little less empathetic to the struggles of outsiders, because they'd rather protect their own investments first rather than risk security for a little extra outward charity.
----------
The perfect parallel here is how the Left and Right in politics resemble the left and right sides of the brain. One side is the artistic side and the other side is the management side.
If one side doesn't function properly, the entire body suffers. It's very important for BOTH sides to communicate effectively with each other.
If we can't get the Left and the Right to work TOGETHER, the USA is doomed. And as a former lefty who is appalled at how extreme the left has become with all of their suicidally empathetic but misguided decisions they need to take accountability for them or there is no moving forward.
------------------------------------------------
There are many countries with multi-party representation. They all exhibit similar political problems to the 2 party system.
One problem is that the 3rd party becomes a grift for one of the other two parties in power.
The root problem is big money, big power and big censorship in ALL elections, not how many parties there are. Fix those and you've solved your political problems.
It's worth emphasizing though, that the most important root problem is censoring the freedom to speak...on ANY subject.
Freedom of Speech is the ONLY way to solve every other problem and so it must be protect at ALL costs.
One of the most popular criticisms of ranked-choice voting is that it's too complicated for most people to understand.
I don't understand this criticism. What's so complicated about a top 5 list? Maybe we can use videos of David Letterman's top ten lists in voter education materials?
And thank you for listing the failures of California's top-two system. It has been making us miserable for more than a decade now.
The problem with the two party system is we don't have one. Yes, we have people who call themselves Republicans and others who call themselves Democrats but we end up with either RW reactionary Republicans or RW corporate Democrats. There is no left wing in government and both parties are trying to kill the progressives, who are the actual opposition. If we have two parties one of them should represent me, at least mostly, but neither in power does. Maybe we should change party designations to MAGA, Corporate, Progressive, RINOs (old-style Republicans or call it Conservatives), DSA and perhaps a few others.
Thought-provoking article. It makes me wonder whether, regardless of which electoral reforms we may try to pursue, we may be missing a pathway to get us there: i.e., a practical civic infrastructure platform—an easy-to-use way for ordinary citizens to participate more effectively in self-government by continuously understanding issues, identifying shared priorities, collaborating on solutions, and holding institutions accountable. Could that kind of infrastructure help almost any democratic system work better?
The most notable fact about this article is that no surveys asked whether respondents want parties to exist at all or, if they exist, to be treated by governments as anything other than voluntary associations.
Exactly, Jonathon! Political parties are the root cause of polarization. Election cycles that exchange them at regular frequency don't help either! Please see my comment above.
This is really helpful. My take on how to get there: In order for reform to work, there are some issues that need to be dealt with: the way campaigns are financed, which allows wealthy corporations and people to heavily influence the outcomes; the stronghold the two existing parties have over the narrative and funding and support for candidates. Both of these make it almost impossible for non-party-line candidates to be elected. If we could establish reforms over finance (overturn Citizens United, for example), election season length (it's unhelpful for people to start talking about the next presidential election in the first month of a new administration), primary timing (what if we had all primaries on the same day?), electoral college... then it would be easier to allow additional parties to realistically have a chance to form and compete. Also, more focus should be put on local and state elections. If a third party appears only in national elections, it's a spoiler. If they can get elected in mayoral, state legislative positions, more people will know what their policies are.
My question to all: Is there a model with proportional representation has districts (even multi member districts) so that the voter has a sense of personal or geographic connection with those elected?
Yes. MMP or mixed member proportional representation. Germany and New Zealand use it.
I am writing from New Zealand, which uses the MMP system of proportional representation. I understand that Germany uses a similar system. In New Zealand, there is a great deal of discontent with the MMP system. You can get a feeling for the discontent in New Zealand by visiting this political comment website: https://www.brashandmitchell.com/post/peter-williams-my-vote-needs-a-home
According to Google AI “German politics is significantly polarised, driven by the rise of populist parties, deep economic and regional divides, and intense emotional resentment between political camps. Over 81% of people in Germany perceive society as divided.”
In New Zealand, I believe the discontent arises because minor parties negotiate “deals” with the major party after an election to enable the major party to govern. Unpopular and divisive minor party policies are supported by the major party in return for the minor party agreeing to support the major party’s policies. This results in the unpopular minor party policies being rammed through our parliament. Proportional representation may have worked in less divided times, but it’s not suited to the polarized societies we live in now.
My guess is that discontent with proportional representation is not limited to New Zealand and Germany. My conclusion is that democracies around the world are failing because:
Competing political parties + Cyclic elections =
Economic waste + Social turmoil + Inability to implement long-term plans
I think democracies need to get rid of both polarizing political parties and short-term focused election cycles. My suggestions for achieving these changes may be found here: https://medium.com/@cliffwainui1/our-democracies-are-breeding-grounds-for-inequity-and-discontent-this-is-because-5bfa5810a96e
Your ideas about constitutional engineering are worth serious consideration, Cliff. In this forum my comment was limited to one observation: that (except for questions about top-two primaries) polling on political parties seems to be imposing on respondents an assumption that they have not agreed to, namely that political parties should exist and be constitutionally or legislatively recognized and/or regulated. This is like asking respondents whether the President should be elected by universal popular vote, which imposes the assumption that the President should exist. It is unfair to respondents to ask for their opinions while implicitly forcing higher-level opinions on them. As an engineer, you know the necessity of testing the edge cases. The analog here is to allow for edge cases when formulating survey questions. If you ask whether the top income-tax rate should be higher, lower, or stay the same, ensure that respondents who believe there should be no top rate, or who believe there should be no income tax, or who believe there should be no money, can answer.
Yes, I think we need to approach democracy from a clean slate point of view. New Zealand, a small country which led the world with votes for women, would be an ideal size of democracy to experiment with, but the majority of people here seem to be as fixated with the need for political parties as everywhere else. I think this fixation is based on the idea that humans need to be competitive in wealth accumulation, in business, in sport and you name it. While previously a competitive businessman, at the age of 79, I have concluded that competitiveness is a terribly harmful human trait that we should endeavor to get rid of. Getting it out of our democratic systems would be an excellent place to start!
You say “the majority of people here seem to be as fixated with the need for political parties as everywhere else”. They may seem to be, but maybe they are not. Polling could help us find out. But, if it merely assumes that people believe parties are necessary, it will not ask the questions that would test that assumption.
Yes, I agree that is an important question to ask!
It is completely understandable why so many Americans feel exhausted by the traditional two-party system, especially when political gridlock dominates headlines. While people agree that the current dynamic is broken, agreeing on a viable alternative—like ranked-choice voting or coalition building—is where the real debate begins. Even when looking for local public information or using a https://renvillecountyjailroster.org people just want simple, reliable systems that actually serve the public interest. Until voters unite around a single alternative framework, we are likely stuck navigating the exact same electoral trade-offs.
I've long come to the conclusion that the universe and everything in it works on a binary polarity.
Male / female, yin / yang, positive /negative.
I think that the dual party system is a representation of that phenomenon.
I've written this before, but I'll retype it for clarity.
The Left are primarily made up of "highly agreeable" people. That's the proper psychological term. This means that the Left is made up of people who prefer to say 'yes' to ideas rather than 'no. This openness makes them very good at coming up with ideas and solutions.
Unfortunately, people who say yes too often are not good at IMPLEMENTING those ideas because they choose a 'yes' at critical junctures where a 'no' would be a better option, and so poor implementation creates new, unexpected problems.
Think of the Left as the artists and dreamers. Great at using their imagination, but terrible at managing those ideas.
Or think of the Left when they allow Liberal immigration policies because they feel empathy for suffering immigrants, but immigration policies have created their own new problems that now need addressing, as witnessed in real time.
----------
The Right are primarily made up of "highly DIS-agreeable" people. These people much prefer saying 'no' because they are conservative with their approach. They don't want to create a new problem. This makes them GREAT at effective idea implementation, but not so good at coming up with the ideas.
They make great managers, but may be a little less empathetic to the struggles of outsiders, because they'd rather protect their own investments first rather than risk security for a little extra outward charity.
----------
The perfect parallel here is how the Left and Right in politics resemble the left and right sides of the brain. One side is the artistic side and the other side is the management side.
If one side doesn't function properly, the entire body suffers. It's very important for BOTH sides to communicate effectively with each other.
If we can't get the Left and the Right to work TOGETHER, the USA is doomed. And as a former lefty who is appalled at how extreme the left has become with all of their suicidally empathetic but misguided decisions they need to take accountability for them or there is no moving forward.
------------------------------------------------
There are many countries with multi-party representation. They all exhibit similar political problems to the 2 party system.
One problem is that the 3rd party becomes a grift for one of the other two parties in power.
The root problem is big money, big power and big censorship in ALL elections, not how many parties there are. Fix those and you've solved your political problems.
It's worth emphasizing though, that the most important root problem is censoring the freedom to speak...on ANY subject.
Freedom of Speech is the ONLY way to solve every other problem and so it must be protect at ALL costs.
One of the most popular criticisms of ranked-choice voting is that it's too complicated for most people to understand.
I don't understand this criticism. What's so complicated about a top 5 list? Maybe we can use videos of David Letterman's top ten lists in voter education materials?
And thank you for listing the failures of California's top-two system. It has been making us miserable for more than a decade now.
The problem with the two party system is we don't have one. Yes, we have people who call themselves Republicans and others who call themselves Democrats but we end up with either RW reactionary Republicans or RW corporate Democrats. There is no left wing in government and both parties are trying to kill the progressives, who are the actual opposition. If we have two parties one of them should represent me, at least mostly, but neither in power does. Maybe we should change party designations to MAGA, Corporate, Progressive, RINOs (old-style Republicans or call it Conservatives), DSA and perhaps a few others.
Thought-provoking article. It makes me wonder whether, regardless of which electoral reforms we may try to pursue, we may be missing a pathway to get us there: i.e., a practical civic infrastructure platform—an easy-to-use way for ordinary citizens to participate more effectively in self-government by continuously understanding issues, identifying shared priorities, collaborating on solutions, and holding institutions accountable. Could that kind of infrastructure help almost any democratic system work better?