WHAT GOOD WOULD MULTI-PARTY DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA DO FOR THE LEFT?

With controversy over U.S. elections and their structure fresh in mind, what do we make of a proposed switch to a multi-party political system?

Here’s one analysis, with a hint at the future: It won’t solve the frustration of Progressives, at least not quickly.

Failings of the two-party system

Whenever electoral reform is brought up in the United States, which is not often, there is often a line of argument brought against a change to a multi-party system, that goes as follows:

1) Two-party systems promote stability more effectively than a multi-party system.

2) Two-party systems are a means to suppress views that are too extreme and radical.

3) Instability and the rise of extremism are often what leads to the downfall of democracy.

Therefore, it is considered in America’s best interest that the two-party system remains and is reinforced.

This is the strongest argument I have seen used, and is oftentimes the most popular argument whenever a country with a “First-past-the-post” system is holding a referendum on the issue of major electoral reform. Though the strongest defense of our current system, I take issue with this line of thinking.

First, the reason it seems likely that a two-party system would have a stabilizing effect on a country isn’t because of its effectiveness at getting tasks of the government done, but because it is a system instead that dampens democracy – by incentivizing political conformity in society. Second, I am not convinced that the two-party system can guarantee this stability, anyway. In some ways, in fact, it has created tribalistic divisions in a way that would not occur in a multi-party system, such as the “blue bad, red good” mentality that has dominated political discourse in America in the last couple of decades.

Furthermore, I find the premise that the two parties have the ability to gatekeep extremist movements from taking hold to be unacceptable. The 2016 election has demonstrated that it is possible for a major party to be taken over by more extreme elements of that party, given the correct circumstances. And when this happens, it becomes far harder to contain the extremists, since they may control one of the most powerful institutions in the country. For example, how many Republicans did not vote for Trump on the basis that he was too extreme? Not many. Even people that we would consider moderate Republicans are/were fine with Trump being in office and will defend him viciously against his critics. And it’s not because there were necessarily part of his base, but rather because he is a Republican, and in fact, is THE Republican.

This is a danger in a two-party system that is often ignored. Though I won’t imply that the rise of fascism in America will be remedied by electoral reform, it is important to emphasize that the fact we live in a two-party system plays a big role in American Fascism today.

People, for one reason or another, feel disenfranchised by this current two-party system. Some feel that there isn’t a real option they are presented with at the ballot box, so therefore, they won’t vote. And while their emotions certainly do not come from nowhere, this sort of behavior is extremely unhealthy for a democracy. And I seriously doubt that we will be able to alleviate

this sentiment in any meaningful way in our present electoral framework. Surely, there are other options at play.

The legality of electoral reform

For those who wish for electoral reform on a national level, I have some bad news. The federal government – Congress, the courts, the president – has very little power in how elections are conducted. Rather it is the states themselves that make most of the rules.

The good news, though, is that the U.S. Constitution says very little about how exactly elections are held. All it will take for significant reform is a change within any state’s constitution or even simply a bill that changes election laws. States, as far as my understanding of the Constitution goes, can do whatever they want with how they hold elections, so long as they doen’t violate the various Supreme Court rulings on election laws and the Equal Protections clause of the 14th Amendment.

So, theoretically, a state can do things a lot differently if it really wanted to. But, at the moment, most states chose not to.

When it comes to presidential elections, there is also some leeway at the state level. However, what won’t change is the fact that there is an Electoral College. That is here to stay until we amend Article II, Section I, of the U.S. Constitution. But the Constitution never told states how to allocate their EC votes – all of the states just happen to have strikingly similar rules on how to reward electors.

Again, if a state really wanted, they wouldn’t have to follow the norms. It may be the case that a number of states are going to be doing that, anyways, given the right conditions. Several are already trying to circumnavigate the Electoral College by changing their laws on how they award

electors. Based on the outcome of the national popular vote (simply, whichever candidate wins the most total votes across the U.S.), these states will pledge all of their electors to the more popular candidate. If enough states agree, to where the number of electors awarded based on this agreement reaches 270 (the mathematical majority required to win the presidency), the Electoral College will become effectively dysfunctional.

In summary, the nature of the American system basically makes any nationwide electoral reform highly impractical, at the least, or legally impossible, at worst. Any change in the United States’ electoral system will have to be local in nature. And if there is a wave of electoral reform in the U.S., it is likely we will have a variety of different systems in different states.

Personally, that would make the U.S. more interesting to me – but would make the Union messy and confusing to many.

Say we do have a multi-party democracy: Now what?

Let’s just say we have gotten past our hurdles of reforming American democracy in such a way that promotes the formation of strong and viable third (or more) party/parties. Now what happens? What does the Left gain from this?

Locally speaking, it is probably good news for the Left, as it would now be easier to build local political grass-roots institutions with cities or even states. Nationally though, I don’t think that much would change. I think there would be some positive changes, but Progressives would find themselves in a very familiar position even without having to be in the same party as the Democrats.

First, let’s make a scenario to visualize what is likely to happen. Currently, we have the Democratic and Republican parties. Once electoral reform is accomplished, three or four things will happen:

1) The Progressive faction of the Democrats will divorce from the Liberals.

2) The Libertarians among the Republicans will see little reason in supporting the Republicans anymore and consolidate around the fledgling Libertarian Party.

3) Trumpists would probably form the America First Party, or something like that.

4) (Possibly) The Greens might pick up a few seats in Congress, if they are lucky.

Let’s focus on the Democrats and the progressives. With the Progressives gone, the Democrats will no longer have an incentive to appeal to left-wing policies and will be more aggressively centrist. They will probably even pitch themselves as the middle-of-the-road alternative to the extremists – being neither left- nor right-wing. These voters are, unfortunately, the plurality of the party currently, and will continue to be more powerful than the Progressive Party. My guess is they would pick up around 25-30% of the vote, on normal election years.

Progressives would, in turn, become the new left-wing party – likely center-left, akin to milquetoast Social Democratic Parties that are seen internationally. They would have genuine left-wing policies and campaign as populists. They would probably get 15-20% of the vote, making them the third-largest party.

Next are the Republicans, likely a little bit more toned down, since they wouldn’t have to appeal to the Trump types, anymore. But they are still social conservatives who have a strong religious undertone, and they are, by international standards, a little more extreme than the average

European conservative. They would make up 20-25% of the vote, assuming the Trumpists leave the party.

Now come the Libertarian and the America First parties. They would each get about 10-15% of the vote on a normal election year. Libertarians are aggressively anti-welfare, and they prefer the old policy of isolationism, or at least for the U.S. to restrain its interactions with the rest of the world. America First are a ragtag group of closet fascists (or open fascists) loyal to Trump, basically his personal base.

Okay, so let’s run a theoretical 2032 national election where we have achieved electoral reform or something of that sort. This is a breakdown of House of Representative seats (218 out of 435 would be needed to form a functioning coalition government):

Democratic: 114 (26%)

Republican: 91 (21%)

Progressive: 87 (20%)

America First: 69 (16%)

Libertarian: 35 (8%)

Green: 17 (4%)

Independent/Other: 22 (5%)

Wow, that was a messy election. There wasn’t a clear winner and what is going to have to happen is a coalition will need to be formed, which would likely be called a “caucus” in the U.S. Congress.

The Democrats did come out on top, so it looks like unless talks to form a caucus fall through, they will be leading whatever government/majority caucus is formed. So, as a centrist party,

what are the options that the Democrats have? The main concern right now is that the America First Party did decently well in the last election and they are extremely unpopular among those who didn’t vote for them. Chances are, then, that most parties will avoid even involving them in any caucus.

That leaves Democrats with two realistic options: They can approach the Republicans, or they can approach the Progressives and Greens. With the Progressives and Greens, they would be have barely enough seats, combined, to garner a majority. But let’s say that the Democrats come to the Progressives, just so I can make my point. The Progressives and Democrats sit down at the negotiation table, and the Progressives made a lot of campaign promises during the last election cycle (such as a $25 minimum hourly wage, cancellation of all student debt, and a federal jobs guarantee). What do you think will happen if the Progressives demand those provisions? The Democrats will just tell them no. And if the Progressives constantly harass them about it, the Democrats can just leave and talk with the Republicans instead. The Democrats will work with Progressives only if they feel that the Progressives will be an easier partner to work with in governing the nation. And the Progressives will have to be careful, too, because they are more likely to be blamed for coalition talks failing and allowing America First another opportunity of winning more votes.

So what would be the smart thing for Progressives to do? The answer likely is to accept the half measures that the Democrats and the Progressives hammer out and essentially accept a centrist, but slightly left-leaning, government. In essence, basically what normally happens now – but with a little more silver lining.

Maybe if the Progressives gain more ground next election, the Democrats will give them more concessions. But that’s a big “if.”

So, back to my main point. While I think a third party is something that the Left should strive for, I don’t want Progressives to be under the illusion that this will somehow change things fundamentally for them. Unless the establishment has an extremely bad election year, the Progressives will likely remain a junior partner in a caucus for the foreseeable future. And that means the Democrats throw them some breadcrumbs while the Progressives must accept their policy agenda. That is not a really savory position in which to be, but, hey – it’s basically the position they are in now.

Advocate Staff