“There can be no daily democracy without daily citizenship”
~Ralph Nader
Functional democracies always have multiple political parties taking part in the governing process. From Great Britain to Germany and Iraq to Ireland, all these democracies have a multi-party system that promotes a lively political discourse. Hence I find it quite absurd and ironic that the self-proclaimed leader of the free world has a political system with such an entrenched dichotomous slant.
Multi-party systems promote a much livelier and rewarding political atmosphere. For example, look at the UK political system which is dominated by 2 main political parties: the Conservative Tories and the Labor Party. But smaller 3rd parties hold over 14% of the seats in the UK’s main legislative body: the House of Commons. These parties include: the Liberal Democrats (who are fast becoming Britain’s established 3rd party), the Democratic Unionist Party, the Scottish National Party etc. All of these smaller parties contribute to the political atmosphere in the country. Also, the British parliamentary system promotes real debate: Heated exchanges, debates and questions are a well established part of the “prime minister’s questions” segment. A brief clip below – Here current Leader of the Opposition David Cameron accuses Prime Minister Gordon Brown for stealing an opposition idea and delaying elections because the polls were unfavorable.
Critics of my argument will counter that the present system only exists in this dichotomous state because the two major parties consistently engage and bring in different groups to maintain their current umbrella coalitions called the Democratic and Republican parties. This point has some merits. The two dominant parties are really just collection of interest groups that share some basic common philosophy. These parties have a huge incentive to bring in more diverse activist groups as long as those groups share their same basic common philosophy. But this effect results in the dilution of innovative and diverse thought. If a party dedicated to the abolishment of the income tax becomes dissolved into the general Republican party, this anti-income tax party will have to settle for fighting for lower taxes in the broader context of the Republican Party. This result denies voters the chance of voting for a candidate who supports something they favor – the abolishment of the income tax.
Both the US and the UK have a “winner takes all” or “first past the post” system where the winner of a plurality of votes secures victory. In the US, the presidential candidate who wins a plurality of votes in a state wins all state’s Electoral College votes (the Electoral College is the body that goes on to select the President). This system exists in the UK where the winner of a plurality of votes in a constituency (district) becomes that district’s Member of Parliament. Then, the party that wins a majority of seats in the parliamentary goes on to form a government and its leader becomes the Prime Minister. According to Duverger’s Law, this “first past the post/winner takes all system” favors two-party dominated politics because smaller third parties are usually not concentrated enough in one area to win any seats in a legislature let alone win a state in a Presidential election. But the UK system provides a counter to this Law. As stated above, the UK has a vibrant multi-party system with a 3rd party (the Liberal Democrats) fast becoming an established 3rd party. But even in the UK, the deck is stacked against these 3rd parties. For example, in the most recent 2005 parliamentary election, the Liberal Democrats won 22% of the nationwide vote but only secured 10% of the seats in the parliament.
So, is there any hope for a third party in the US political system? Once again, I’d reiterate my desire to see Ron Paul run as a candidate of the Libertarian Party platform. He represents the most popular national figure that the Libertarian party could ever hope for. Paul regularly polls between 5-10% in nation polls for the Republican Party nomination. Unfortunately, this might not be good enough. Ross Perot, the most successful 3rd party candidate to run for president, secured almost 20% of the popular vote in 1992. He was polling between 7-9% for most of year but his support jumped above 25% after he participated in the Presidential Debates. Perot showed that taking part in a Presidential debate can give a 3rd party candidate legitimacy and higher poll numbers. For this years debates, the Commission on Presidential debates has ruled that a candidate must poll 15% or above in a group of selected polling organizations to be eligible. Ron Paul won’t make the cut. Nor will any other 3rd party candidate like the Green Party’s Cynthia Mckinney (Ralph Nader has formed an exploratory committee but has not officially jumped into the race). Look for either of these 3rd party candidates to win a percentage point or two come November. In a close election, they may even tilt the balance one way or another. But for the foreseeable future 3rd parties and their candidates will not have any impact on the political process. And most tragically, those citizens who agree with 3rd party policies and views will never truly be part of the process – whether they know it now or not.
And that’s jus’ the tip.
References
Candidate Selection Process, Commission on Presidential Debates
Third Party (US), Wikipedia
Plurality voting system, Wikipedia
