As a follow-up to
my recent piece on the Green Party, that enthusiastic tool of republican power, I'm going to write an entire series on that entity; this because, judging by the lively debate prompted by the piece, it seems that quite a bit of misinformation is being floated by partisans of that party, which stands in dire need of correction.
The arguments employed by the Greens to justify their capricious and self-indulgent lack of solidarity with the vast majority of the left fall into three categories:
The two-party system does not adequately represent the full spectrum of American political thought; having more than two choices on the ballot is inherently more democratic than having only two.
There is no appreciable difference between republicans and Democrats.
The Green Party presents a genuinely different force in American politics which, if only someone actually cared, would contribute something of value to the general welfare that would justify all the hue and cry.
All of these claims are either deeply flawed or outright false. In this installment, I'll deal with questions related to the two-party system.
Personally, it is the claim that the two-party system is inherently flawed, at least as compared to the glories of a multi-party system, which most infuriates me. This is the kind of bloodless process argument that interests no one except, well, cranky white liberals stricken with a moral superiority complex. Certainly, vox populi does not seem to be demanding that this "problem" be fixed; it's not as if the two parties take a combined share of 97%+ of the vote every four years or anything like that. So let's take a look at the two-party system.
The legal basis of the two-party system
The constitution vests the power of holding federal legislative elections in the several states in Article I, Section 4:
The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.
The same principle of state sovereignty applies to the election of the President, in Article II, Section 1:
Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.
The New York State constitution is the governing document for all elections held within this state. Article II is the applicable section; it specifies several requirements for voters and voting, but curiously does not spell out that the candidate who receives the most votes in a given jurisdiction shall represent such jurisdiction.
There is a nod to the two-party system, however: Article 2, § 8 requires that a representative of each of the two parties who garnered the most votes in the last preceding election shall be included in all boards, governing bodies and so forth that administer the next election. An exception is made for very local elections in towns and villages. Article III, meanwhile, spells out the duties, rights and method of apportionment for the state legislature. In general terms, administration of New York elections is left to the Board of Elections. Other states have similar provisions.
Notably, I can't find - in an admittedly superficial reading of the law - any positive legal barriers to a multi-party system. This is because none are required. Our entire system of legislative (and executive and judicial) elections rests on the concept of single-member, winner-take-all constituencies and offices known as first past the post.
First Past the Post
The Anglo-Saxon or Westminster democracies all use a system commonly referred to as First past the post, which specifies that the candidate with the most votes in a given constituency shall represent that constituency, regardless of whether or not he or she receives an actual majority. In consequence, the UK, the United States, Australia and New Zealand all have functioning two-party systems. The exception to the rule is Canada, where a system of regionally-based parties has emerged, pitting francophone Quebec against the Anglo center (chiefly in Ontario) and the conservative West. A similar regional pattern seems to be emerging in the UK, with regional parties like Plaid Cymru (Wales) or the Scottish National Party increasingly making inroads in the Palace of Westminster. A more recent phenomenon, chiefly in southern England, is the Liberal Democratic Party, which comes closest under the Westminster system to being an actual third party. However, the Lib-Dems (as they're abbreviated) have not yet actually taken part in government, and presently serve the otherwise laudable purpose of drawing votes from the Tories.
Representational systems, usually composed of a mixture of direct representation via districts and a form of party list voting, govern in continental Europe. Examples are Italy, Germany and France; notably, all of these countries are governed by party coalitions, and tend to have somewhat less stable governments (and party systems) than do Westminster democracies. For example, the present Italian government is composed of seven parties; its predecessor was formed by four; while the current German government is comprised of two political antipodes, the leftist Social Democrats and the rightist Christian Democrats. This because there was no majority in the Bundestag, the German parliament, for either a left or right coalition government. While this grand coalition, as it is called, arguably represents the broadest possible basis for a government, the resulting intergovernmental clash of positions has left that country without a clear policy agenda. Considering that policy sclerosis is the main affliction for Germany at this moment in history, that country would be well-served by a decisive election.
The inescapable conclusion from this empirical observation is this: a multi-party system is not inherently preferable to a two-party system when either political stability or the value of clear governing majorities are factored in. In addition, the shift from a two-party to a multi-party system would require significant legislative changes in all fifty states, necessitating essentially the overthrow of our existing electoral system. It is not clear from a comparison of the experiences of multi-party systems with ours that this profound shift would engender any positive benefits to the body politic. Nor is it clear that this shift is desired by voters; as noted above, with the exception of elections that don't matter, the voting public regularly gives in excess of 90% of its votes to the two major parties.
The question of representation in two-party versus multi-party systems
The central quibble of the Greens regarding the two-party system is their claim that the binary nature of the choices in the voting booth imposes an equally binary system of political views, which they claim crushes their otherwise oh-so-worthwhile ideas.
This claim is nonsensical, as a short glance at the views contained within both parties demonstrates. For example, the Democratic Party contains both Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and Gene Taylor (D-MS); on the other side of the aisle, while it is indeed characterized by greater uniformity, you'll find Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) on the one hand and Sam Brownback (R-KS) on the other. This breadth of opinions does have consequences.
The policy-making process within the two parties - leaving aside for a moment the influence of non-legislative actors, such as a President of one party of another (I'm sure we'll have a legitimate one again at some point) - is a clear reflection of this broad array of opinions contained within the two parties. The crucial actors in this process are the caucuses: within the Democractic Party, for example, the Progressive Caucus, the Black Caucus, the Farm Caucus, the DLC and so on. The other side has a roughly comparable system, with the Braying-Jackass Caucus, the Draft-Dodger Caucus, the Weasely-Traitors caucus, and of course the so-called Christian Caucus, the broadest assemblage of fanatics known to mankind outside of the Iranian parliament.
The respective caucuses, along with unquantifiable bonds between legislators, represent the varying views within the parties. On our side of the aisle, lacking the institutional focus of the White House, arguably, the breadth of views is such that they impede the policy-making process more than anything else.
In terms of the representation of views, therefore, it is not clear that a multi-party system is preferable to a two-party system. If anything, broad-based parties assure that, paradoxically, more voices are heard, especially compared with European coalition governments, which routinely exclude vast parts of the political spectrum.
Third Parties in America - an Overview
Third parties in America follow one of two paths: either, they replace one of the major parties - this has happened twice, when the Whigs replaced the Federalists, only to be replaced by the republicans in a process that culminated with Lincoln's election to the Presidency - or they struggle in obscurity.
There are presently roughly fifty third parties in this country at the federal level, including not one, but two green parties. Actually, there are three green parties, if you count the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party, which you should. Other gems include the Communist Party, the Libertarian Party (which qualifies as the real third party based on election results), the Reform Party, the Democratic Socialists of America (who, it is worth nothing, have nothing to do with the Democratic Party), the American Patriot Party, Family Values Party, America First Party, and so on and so forth in one piteous long march into irrelevance.
Third parties can be effective at the local level and, occasionally, at the state level. New York actually has a thriving scene of third parties, such as the Working Families Party or, over on the dark side, the so-called "conservative party". What these parties do rather well is get Democrats or republicans elected, and afterwards make use of their resulting electoral clout. The Greens, of course, disdain any such action in most cases, fearing as they do the actual implementation of policy; the exception to the rule in this cycle was Chris Owens in the Eleventh District. I would go so far as to argue that that race was another example of how irrelevant the Greens are; they were unable to help Chris where it mattered, in the primary, instead collecting signatures for a possible general election run. Had it worked, frankly, the Greens would have stood to gain much; but the benefit of this strategy to Chris is, to me at least, unclear.
The spoiler effect
The reason I'm writing this series is, simply, the fact that the Greens are set to replicate their "success" of 2000 by running candidates in closely contested Senate elections, in Pennsylvania and Washington. From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:
Aaron Dixon, a black community activist and icon of Seattle's political left for nearly 40 years, is running for the U.S. Senate, posing what could be a potent threat to Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell's chances for re-election.
Dixon, 57, a co-founder of the Seattle chapter of the Black Panther Party in 1968, is announcing at a news conference Thursday his candidacy for the Green Party nomination. In a close general election, he conceivably could peel enough liberal votes from Cantwell to help hand the election to Republican businessman Mike McGavick.
In other words, Dixon could do for McGavick what another third-party candidate, Libertarian Jeff Jared, arguably did for Cantwell when she unseated Republican Sen. Slade Gorton in 2000. Cantwell won by 2,229 votes, and many Republicans think the 64,734 votes for Jared cost Gorton the election.
"This has got to be great news for McGavick and bad news for Cantwell," University of Washington political scientist David Olson said of Dixon's candidacy. That's particularly so, he said, because Dixon could pull votes from two reliably Democratic constituencies, environmentalists and African Americans.
This spoiler effect comes about simply because, while the Greens fret about it to no end, we do in fact still have a two-party system, which in turn imposes the logic of a zero-sum game on elections. A loss for one side, in first past the post, is a gain for the other. Meanwhile, studies conducted after the 2000 debacle confirmed that the vast majority of Green voters were Democrats. This logic drives Green messaging strategies, which are uniformly aimed at disgruntled Democrats. Thereby, they inevitably empower republicans. In Washington State specifically, their opposition to a 'pro-war' Democrat, Senator Cantwell, risks throwing the seat to a really pro-war - with no quotes necessary - hard-right republican.
So tell me: is all of the above worth a republican senate? I say no. I'm all for third parties on the right; but when our government is being run by unhinged radicals, we need to stand together. The capricious Green Party stands in the way of that solidarity; and for that, I say call them what they are: a republican tool.
[Cross-posted at The Daily Gotham]