In a recent diary, A Converation Across the Pond I talked about my conversation with my liberal Scottish friend Richard regarding the difference between Republicans/Democrats vs Tories/Labor. Here's a follow up based on some of your comments.
richardwinger wrote:
The Liberal Democratic Party always wins some seats in Parliament and has gone from being a centrist party to (relatively speaking) the party that is to the left of Labour.
At least Britain has easy ballot access for minor parties and independents, unlike certain states in the U.S. like Oklahoma, where the voters in 2004 and 2008 could not vote for anyone for president unless they voted for the Democrat or the Republican
chinshihtang wrote:
This is one large difference between the party orientation of the two countries--that there is a significant 3rd party in Britain.
I don't think we in America have the faintest idea where this party stands on practical issues, how it can continue to exist, or how it is likely to relate to the next government's formation.
Or, how we can get something like this going over here!
The US dynamic always--ALWAYS!--plays to the middle, so the range of party flavors is always going to be the full gamut of letters from M to N (just to the left of middle and just to the right of middle).
This is a complaint that Americans will always hear from Europeans - our democratic process is limited by the fact that our two parties have such a hold on the electoral process - from gerrymandering districts to partisan control of debates and vote counting. We're told the many choices voters have in European countries makes their parties more responsive to voters' wishes, or they risk losing vote share to the abundant competition.
I don't buy it. To be more specific, I don't buy the fact that European voters have all that much more choice than American voters do.
Consider someone who votes for the Green candidate for MP - if they're lucky, the Greens will actually win a seat in Parliament. Then what? If one of the main parties has an outright majority, the Green MP could spend his days consistently voting Green for his constituents but rarely having an impact on legislation. Or, if none of the major parties has a majority, the Greens negotiate an alliance and become part of a bloc, either in power or in opposition, in which case he will be forced to support legislation much of the time that he doesn't agree with or that has nothing to do with the reason for his being in Parliament.
Now switch to the US. We may have a candidate for Congress strongly sopported by the NRA, or Focus on the Family, or the the gay rights lobby. He or she may not agree completely with either major party, but will still latch on to one or the other party labels for all the benefits of party identification in the election process.
What's the difference? It's that in Europe, alliances are formed after the election, whereas in the US, they're formed before.
Consider the Republican Party, post election 2008. Can anyone doubt that this "party" is really nothing more than a coalition bloc cobbled together to try and hold enough seats to gain a majority in the legislature? In Europe our Republican Party could easily break down into a socially conservative party (call them the "Palins"), a fiscally conservative party (the "Norquists")and perhaps a militarist-interventionist party (the "Rumsfelds"). Each would campaign for seats separately, giving the impression of voter choice. But after the election, to have any kind of power in numbers, they'd have to ally and vote as a bloc, whether in power or in oppoosition. The Norquist voters would grumble about having to give in to the wacky demands of the Palins, and the Rumsfelds would bristle at the petty priorities of the other two. In the end, the European voters of each party aren't any more empowered than we are.
Now, the UK Liberal Democrats are a large enough party (ie, an interest group with enough seats in Parliament) that they have enough clout to pull Labor to the left when they feel the need, the same as the religious fundies can pull the Republicans to the right at whim. Our Democrats don't have anyone with that kind of influence on their left (as amply demonstrated by the Lieberman vote on Tuesday), but the Democratic party is still also a coalition of disparate groups - gays, African-Americans, Hispanics, Unions, etc.
The difference between us and the Brits is that in England these disparate groups might vote for their own niche candidates for MP, then settle into a coalition after the election; we simply make our alliances before the election.
There are other arguments for European democracy that clearly can't be debated - independant election commissions, for example, or the impossibility of having one candidate's campaign chairman also be in charge of vote tallying in a district. We need to emulate those laws, no doubt.
But don't envy their multi-party systems - it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. Or if you prefer, swings and roundabouts.