Political Parties

Here’s a brief discussion on why political parties exist and why certain types of democratic systems (such as ours) are two-party systems. In short, political parties are useful instruments of democratic government, and our two-party system is largely a result of structural constraints which lead American voters to vote strategically, rather than waste a vote for symbolic purposes.

It should be noted that the founders did not explicitly include political parties in the Constitution. George Washington, in his farewell address, actually took timeout to warn citizens of the “baneful effects of the spirits of party”. Still, parties formed, and it is difficult to imagine a functioning democratic system that does not have political parties. This is because parties actually do serve some very valuable functions. Perhaps most importantly, political parties reduce the cost of gathering information (in time and energy, not just money) so that we can actually participate without having to immerse ourselves in politics every moment of every day. Parties serve as organizing forces that simplify the information required to make an “informed” voting decision. For example, if you know that Mrs. X is a Republican, you don’t have to do much additional research to know her views on abortion, taxes, the death penalty, government regulations, etc. This allows us as citizens to engage/participate politically with only minimal time spent gathering information on the candidates. Without parties, you would have to research each candidate’s views on each issue that matters to you, leaving less time and energy for commerce, family, or your own personal interests.

For the sake of continuing the discussion, let’s assume parties do indeed serve a central purpose in our system. Now to address the system itself. The U.S. has what is called a Single-Member-Plurality-District (SMPD) system for electing representatives to Congress. What this means is that in each district, there is only one winner. The candidate that gets more votes than any other candidate in that district wins (this is referred to as plurality, or first-past-the-post…a majority of votes is not required). There is no prize for second or third place, it is “winner-take-all”. So, if your preferred candidate is polling at 10% while the other candidates are polling at around 45% each, what are you going to do with your vote? You basically have few options. You can vote for your candidate that has no chance of winning (a symbolic vote), or you can determine which of the remaining candidates most closely represents your interests, and vote to insure that candidate beats the competitor that least represents your interests. This is referred to as strategic voting, though on the streets you hear it as voting for the lesser of two evils. The third option, of course, is to stay on the sidelines and not case a vote. Voters are, for the most part, rational, and if they choose to vote at all, they tend to vote strategically rather than symbolically. The rationalism of strategic voting over symbolic voting, coupled with the tendency for many voters to simply stay home on election day when their preferred candidate has no chance of winning, effectively marginalizes any third party movement from gaining traction in the near term.

Not all countries have this systemic pull towards two-party competition. For instance, Proportional Representation (PR) systems encourage the development of multiple parties. Here, voters choose among parties (rather than specific candidates) to represent them, and Congressional seats are allocated on the basis of the percentage of votes that the parties receive. If there are 100 seats in Congress and the Green party gets 7% of the vote, they are awarded 7 seats in Congress. This eliminates the disincentive for citizens to vote their preference, increasing party diversity AND, as a happy consequence, increasing participation (remember, third party supporters in the U.S. may choose to cast a strategic vote in place of a wasted symbolic vote, but they often simply stay home on election day). This is not to suggest that the Proportional system is better than SPMD…my purpose here is to simply explore the difference between the two systems as they relate to the presence of multiple parties. PR systems, in general, encourage multiple parties, while our SPMD system marginalizes third parties. For a detailed description, see Duverger's analysis.

For third party proponents, it is worth noting that Duverger’s Law is more a principle than a law. There are historical examples, even in this country, of third parties rising and having impact on political outcomes in SPMD systems, just as there are occasions where PR systems result in only two competitive parties. While these examples are typically exceptions rather than the rule, it is the case that systemic pressures are root-level pressures and likely must be addressed in order to make lasting change. Office-holders (i.e. those that make the rules) have little incentive to enact changes that might reduce their ability to compete for power and win. Real reform probably requires a “perfect storm” in order to overcome the slew of structural and human obstacles that are currently in place. As I’ve indicated previously, however, we may now be seeing signs of that perfect storm on the horizon.

On Education

Each election cycle comes and goes with elected officials and their challengers touting partisan solutions to national problems. In anticipation of President Obama’s education reform proposal due out tomorrow, I wanted to make the following admission: I don’t quite know what to make of education policy. Since this blog is fairly new, I thought it would be a good idea to begin outlining a position on education, assuming that additional attention, as well as your feedback, can help each of us come to terms with informed, practical solutions to what currently is a national catastrophe.

I've taught several community college courses on government over the past decade, and while my experience is mostly anecdotal (n=6, not the stuff of robust empirical analyses), I remain confident that my experience is not unique. For one thing, international students (particularly Chinese students) consistently outperform their domestic peers in my classroom. What does it say, really, about our education system when international students are outperforming American students in an American Government class? In addition, the quality of writing is on the decline – this too is an observation with limited data points, though not inconsistent with national reading/writing test scores. Worse, still, there seems to be increasing pushback from the students themselves when it comes to completing their assignments and accepting the instructor’s evaluation of their work. *on a side note, last semester I assigned Madison’s Federalist Papers 10 and 51, standard stuff for an American Government course. One student asked if there was a version that translated the works into “current” English. Seriously.

“Keep the students happy,” I hear from some on the left…I call it the Kumbaya approach: “Make them feel better about themselves, it’s not their fault if they are unable to perform to expectations.” From an admin position I can understand the viewpoint…after all, a happy student is less likely to drop out…a happy student therefore results in steady tuition revenue, along with additional money from the state.

On the other hand, the right complains about federal interference and the baneful influence of teachers’ unions. Personally, I have had my issues with unions over the years. I have not been one to lament the waning of union power and influence. Having said that, I do not believe the teachers’ unions are solely or even primarily responsible for the current state of education.

As is usually the case, the cause of the performance decline is complex and varied. For instance, certainly video games and TV play a role, as students spend less time working on their assignments and turning instead to accumulating WOW gold, or to finding out whether Snooki makes it home from her latest bar fight on Jersey Shore. In addition, we seem to be comfortable with the belief that we, as a culture, are entitled to the benefits of education, even if we do little to participate. Parents are also to blame, to be sure. I constantly see parents giving in to their kids’ demands, they seem to have lost their cajones when it comes to instilling a sense of discipline.

Those, however, are cultural issues, not to be solved by any Federal or local education policy maneuver. There are some general policy measures that warrant consideration. Here are a few that come to mind: Investing in classroom technologies, reducing class sizes, increasing the length of the school year, offering more opportunities to study abroad, limiting tenure, providing merit-based performance incentives, developing interactive community programs (yes, think PTA), and perhaps most importantly, paying educators a salary commensurate to the value that we place on education, so that the best and brightest have an additional incentive to join the ranks of this noble profession. These are some of the policy measures that CAN be addressed at the community level, the state level, AND the national level. Each deserves some additional attention, so look for this discussion to continue over the coming days. As always, your own ideas are valued, please feel free to comment if you wish.

The Middle OK with Tax on Wealthy

Bruce Bartlett accumulated some recent poll numbers which illustrate that most Americans favor a middle ground position on deficit-cutting. By a roughly 2-1 margin, respondents say they favor a mix of tax increases and spending cuts to jump start our economy and reduce the nation's debt. Even in an environment of divided government, these numbers seem to indicate a mandate of sorts from the public - in conjunction with significant spending cuts, we are willing to ask some (i.e. 'millionaires') to make an additional sacrifice (tax hikes) in order to make every effort to address critical short term and long term economic problems. Is the Federal government, in its current state, likely to respond to public opinion on this issue? That remains to be seen. However, given the inability lately of government leaders to find compromise (even when it is clear that the public demands it), it does seem unlikely.

Some indicators, though, offer hope. Lamar Alexander, a Republican senator from Tennessee, has taken a somewhat bold step towards promoting compromise by stepping down from his leadership position in order to signal a willingness to defect from hard party-line positions. Dozens of prominent political and business leaders have banded together in an effort to persuade members of Congress that working together to adopt bi-partisan policy solutions not only offers the best chance of success, but is also consistent with the wishes of the general public.

An opening for Centrists?

Here's the latest Rasmussen poll illustrating the gathering storm against all that is partisan. Where some see threat, others see opportunity. Some lament that the current state of partisan bickering reflects the failure of our political system. I see it as an opportunity to bring the silent majority back into play, to once again give voice to the political center (where many in the silent majority stand). The non-ideological political center, filled with right-leaning democrats, left-leaning republicans, and a slew of self-identified independents. This center is where compromise takes place, where pragmatism rules the day. Clearly, though, this center has been increasingly marginalized as a result of hyper-partisan politics over the past two decades.

I hope to accomplish several things over the next several months/years. First, I would like this blog to serve as a forum for identifying and discussing centrist solutions to contemporary social and political problems. Consider it a series of problem-solving exercises, drawing from reasoned assessments of premises and conclusions. Second, I would like this forum to serve as an informational and inspirational vehicle, a call to action for those (like myself) who have been sitting on the sidelines complaining about the demise of good government in the face of partisan pressures. Perhaps there really IS opportunity...indeed, the non-partisan percentage in the Rasmussen poll is roughly equal to the percentage that identify with either major party!

Certainly we can't assume that all independents are centrist. Some are so extreme that they can't find a home in either party. That being said, I suspect that some Democrats are disenchanted with their far-left comrades, while some Republicans are similarly disillusioned by the tea party movement. I believe the center can win support among partisans in the current climate. I look forward to making this and similar arguments moving forward.