First (of many) Third Party Post(s)

Over the last few days, people have been expressing quite a lot of dissatisfaction with the two-party system, myself included. I was muttering about the idiotic debate over Majority Leader in the House, Michael held his nose at the re-emergence of Trent Lott in the Senate, and most everybody else has expressed some form of dissatisfaction with the current political configuration in the U.S.

The argument for multiparty competition usually goes something like this: with a 2-party system, both coalitions lack ideological distinction, passion, and change comes at a glacial pace, and usually in an incremental form. Both parties tack toward something like the center, trying to win over moderates, but at the expense of a coherent policy agenda. Neither party ultimately stands for anything, and lots of important issues go unaddressed by the parties because they threaten to fracture the diverse coalitions that have somehow aggregated into the Democratic or Republican parties.

Another complaint, and one that seems to hold weight here, is that the various policy stands that have become associated with the two parties makes no intuitive sense, leaving lots of people without an ideologically consistent home. What do you do if you think the federal government should provide a broad safety net and protect the environment, but you're pro-life, opposed to gay marriage, and support an aggressive and hawkish foreign policy? There's not an obvious home for such a person in the U.S.

Me? I think the two-party system offers a clearer choice for voters now than it ever has, mostly because liberals and conservatives have sorted themselves into the more appropriate parties over the past 25-30 years. What this means is that Republicans are conservative Republicans and Democrats are liberal Democrats. This wasn't always the case. If you believe that parties should offer a clear and ideologically consistent choice to the voter, our current system does that reasonably well, or as well as can be expected in a nation of 300 million people. The primary offers something of a chance for ideological debate, and primaries guarantee that the two parties will always be at least somewhat distinct (the primary electorate is usually very ideological). Plus, most 3rd party issues get absorbed by the one of the major parties anyway, once they get important enough. Full disclosure: I voted Nader in 2000.

When it comes to governing, coalitions will ALWAYS form in the legislative arena, for the simple fact that where there are diverse interests, there are only pluralities. Legislators face a collective action problem when they find themselves just one of 435 (or 100) self-interested actors. Building a coalition to pass any given piece of legislation is time-consuming and tedious; lawmakers find they can more easily get their priorities considered and enacted into law by entering into mutually beneficial agreements with other lawmakers. And so, sooner or later, parties form. The founders distrusted parties, but even Madison and Jefferson reluctantly joined standing coalitons after a few sessions of legislative experience.

The same concept holds, whether you have a multiparty system or not. If you need a majority to pass a law, you need friends in order to get what you want. This means compromises. In the U.S., these compromises have been institutionalized into a 2-party system, for better or worse. This means that lots of issues get put on the back burner while parties bicker and posture in order to maintain power or gain a majority on Election Day.

Another thing: first-past-the-post election systems almost invariably lead to a 2-party system, because 1) voters prefer the informational shortcut that party represents, and 2) candidates need the party brand name and institutional assistance to get elected.

It's frustrating to watch the whole thing work itself out. Sometimes I wonder whether a proportional representation system or parliamentary structure would work in the U.S. But ultimately under such a configuration, people would have the same frustrations, because the coalitions that would become necessary for governing would push some issues off the table and induce an incentive to pander to the center. Lots of people would find themselves without an ideological home that makes sense to them.

Of course, it's easy for me to say all this. I'm reasonably satisfied with the Democratic agenda. But then again, as jouncer4life pointed out, you have John Baldacci. Okay, enough from me, I'll bloviate about "clean elections" some other time.