No, Third Parties Will Not Save American Democracy

If you follow national politics even the slightest bit, you are probably a little bit fed up with partisan politics. "Polarization" is what it's called: an affliction that is stymying legislative progress and keeping our federal government in a seemingly eternal state of gridlock. Examples of this include Congress's inability to pass universal background checks on firearms purchases despite overwhelming public support, the inability to compromise on the federal budget that led to the sequester, and Congress's continuing battle over health care legislation passed years ago.

Some people suggest that the problem with American democracy is systemic. Their argument is that the two-party system is intrinsically flawed since it only provides two options for voters. If we only had more options, we would have more of a chance of having a government that actually represents the people of our country, a people who are arguably more moderate than our current party options.

There are three assumptions of this argument that expose the issue with the deus ex machina third-party solution.

First, the argument that third parties will allow for people to choose parties that more closely align with their personal beliefs follows a consumer model of government. The idea is that each individual has an claim to get the product that they want and that producers will provide them with it if demand is high enough.

While this may be a good approach for fast-food, it doesn't work so well in government. This is because government by the people is what Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor terms an "irreducibly social good." Irreducibly social goods are goods that cannot be reduced to the good accrued to individuals. An intrinsic aspect of political life is interaction, and with interaction comes negotiation of the self with others. If we atomize politics, we diminish the most important aspect of politics: its social aspect. Fostering the growth of third parties will not create parties that perfectly align with individuals, but will only create new avenues for compromise. 

Second, advocating for third parties often hinges on a belief that the two parties are too polarized and that a political middle needs to be found. The problem with this is that contemporary polarization in practice is not the fault of both parties, but is actually the fault of the Republican party.

People compare the Tea Party and the Occupy movement, but only one of these fringe movements has been able to successfully infiltrate the party, create a party caucus, and make moderates in its party pay for not holding ideologically pure positions. There was no high-profile primary upending in the Democratic party on the level of Senator Richard Lugar's embarrassing 2012 defeat. Spending cuts have been agreed to by both parties, but it took a near-implosion of the economy to get Republicans to agree to tax rates lower than the Clinton years. On top of that, President Obama's heritage-foundation based health care reform law has been widely called "socialist" by those on the right, stretching the term to the point of meaninglessness. Obama's economic policy platform would have put him in the mainstream of the Republican party 30 years ago and his social policy platform sides with the majority of Americans today. For those who feel like there is no place for a centrist in America today, look no further than the Democratic party.

Lastly, there is an assumption that polarization is an outgrowth of Washington and that "regular people" are more centrist than their representatives in Washington. The reality is that the American people are just as divided as their representatives in Washington. In the last mayoral election here in Omaha, an open primary was held with all parties going head-to-head and the top two vote-getters advancing to the general election. Out of the five candidates, two were radical right-wing candidates, two were moderates, and one was a strong left-wing candidates. One of the radical right-wing candidates and the left-wing candidate floated to the top.

While third parties are fun for someone who is fascinated with politics, they are not the solution to America's political polarization problem. What we need to look to is voter access. Voter ID laws, gerrymandering, and partisan politicians in state director of election positions pose a much more present threat to American democracy than the two-party system. Let's see what we can do to fix issues that can really bring America closer to its promise of a country of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Gerrymandering Poses a Greater Threat to American Democracy than the Electoral College

This post is a letter to the editor I sent to The Columbus Dispatch tonight. It is in response to the following letter to the editor printed today:

The Electoral College is made up of 538 delegates: one delegate for each member of the House and one delegate for each member of the Senate, plus three delegates from the District of Columbia. However, the delegates in almost all cases vote the winner of the popular vote within the various states, making the vote a winner-take-all situation.

In many cases a state, such as Ohio with its 88 counties, could have the residents in as few as 15 counties determine who gets all the delegates’ votes, because of the density of population in those counties. This leaves the voters in the remaining 73 counties theoretically unrepresented.

Would it not make more sense to have a delegate from each congressional district vote the plurality of that district? Since the senators represent the entire state, their two delegates would vote the state popular vote.

This may not change the final results of an election, but it would ensure that each district’s vote represented that district’s sentiments. It might also delay the TV networks predicting winners with less than 5 percent of a state’s votes having been counted.

JERRY W. LAWSON

Galloway

Below is my response:

In his Wednesday letter to the editor “Electoral College Should Be Revised,” Jerry Lawson advocated a system in which Ohio’s electoral votes would be awarded on the basis of congressional districts rather than at the statewide level. While there is a strong case to make that the Electoral College should be reformed, a Congressional district system could not be undertaken until our state’s unfair redistricting system is reformed.

Our current system awards the drawing of congressional districts to the party who controls a majority of five statewide offices. That party can then draw the districts in the manner that most benefits its own interests in the next election. Demographic technology has become so effective that the last redistricting process guaranteed the outcome of all but two of the 148 Congressional, Ohio Senate, and Ohio house races this election season.

Before going on to champion a Congressional district-based approach to the electoral college, we need to do something about the terrible affront to the democratic process that is our own state’s redistricting system.

ROBERT MOORE

Bexley

Romney's "47% Speech" Misses Point of Government Assistance

Mitt Romney's campaign has been struggling recently, suffering from a subpar convention, internal struggles, and a botched response to the recent tragedy in Libya. But the miscue that is making the most news this week is a video posted by Mother Jones Magazine in which Romney characterizes half the country as welfare-dependent freeloaders who he has no need to "worry about."

While much has been written about the factual inaccuracies in Romney's claims in the video, in particular him claiming that the 47% of Americans who do not pay income taxes (many of whom are paying payroll taxes, in the military, or retired) are the same 47% of Americans who receive some sort of benefit from the government and are the same 47% who are currently supporting President Obama's reelection. Others have talked about the troubling ramifications of Romney's assertion that it is "not my job to worry about these people," implying that 47% of Americans should not be of his concern because he cannot ever hope to get their votes

What has not been covered, however, is Romney's troubling misunderstanding of the purpose of government assistance. Throughout the campaign, Romney has railed against a culture of "dependence," trying to paint the current administration and the Democratic Party as a whole as heartless socialists, trying to create a class of Americans that are dependent on government programs and thus dependent on the Democratic Party for subsistence. This came to a head with the Romney campaign's absurd allegations that the Obama administration was somehow trying to gut the Clinton administration work requirement from the current welfare system.

The problem with Romney's rhetoric about government programs is that he consistently overstates his case. While Romney will often pay lip service to the importance of government intervention to help those who are in dire circumstances, he will just as often make the mistake of characterizing all government assistance as demeaning and frivolous.

Both major parties in the United States today are essentially liberal in their political philosophy. Both the Republican and Democratic party espouse the same central values of liberty and equality put forth by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence: that men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

The function of the government in the eyes of both parties is to, at its core, secure life and liberty for its citizens. This is why, over the years, the federal, state, and local governments of the United States have worked to ensure their citizens have the means to live healthy, productive lives. A person who is hungry all day, cannot afford the health care they need to survive, or has no home to go back to at night  is not being afforded their basic rights of life and liberty.

So when Romney decries Americans for feeling "entitled to health care, to food, to housing," he misses the point of our American system. While he may have never had to feel the pinch in regards to getting food, receiving health care, or finding housing, these are issues that everyday Americans deal with all the time, especially the elderly, the disabled, and the very poor.

The argument that Romney should be making is that it is better to be self-sufficient than dependent on the government. That we should keep the safety nets that are needed and do away with those that keep people dependent. That to earn means on our own is better than to receive means from others, but paying attention to the fact that no one gets a start without help from someone.

Geographic Representation Can Hinder Functional Democracy

Yesterday's Columbus Dispatch editorial "Fitting Failure" was a sigh of relief at the inability of the Coalition for Responsive Government to collect enough signatures to put an issue on the ballot that would return the Columbus City Council to a ward system for the first time in one hundred years. The Dispatch credited the city council's at-large election system as one of the reasons that Columbus has thrived while other midwest cities have faltered.

The argument is that a ward system, which requires representatives to be elected from districts within a city in the same way that states elect congressmen from districts within the state, creates a system where councilmen are more interested in advancing the interests of their ward than advancing the interests of the city as a whole. The Dispatch argues that Columbus has been successful compared to other midwestern cities and at the same time has more buy-in and confidence from its citizens, as evidenced by the willingness of voters to approve a 0.5% city income tax increase in 2009.

The discussion warrants a comparison to the US legislative system. Both of the federal government's two houses are elected on a "district" system: The US Senate elects by state and the House of Representatives by districts within states.

Congress is notorious for its low approval rating amongst Americans. Current data places that approval rating at about 17.5%. On the other hand, it is difficult to find any of the 535 senators or house members who have an approval rating so low. One explanation for this is that each member has reason to cater to and promote his or her own state or district, but has little electoral incentive to advocate for the good of the country as a whole.

Contrast this with the European system of parliamentary voting. While there are many variations of the system, the basics come down to voting for a party rather than a person. In this system, the entire country will cast votes for parties, then each party will get a portion of the legislature's seats equal to the proportion of the total votes they received. Theoretically, these legislatures would then be more interested in advancing the country as a whole. This would mean that their approval ratings amongst their citizens would be higher than that of a federal system such as that of the United States.

This seems to bear itself out in the polls, at least in one example. A 2011 story about the British parliament measured its popularity spread (% approve minus % disapprove) at just over -30. This is not good by any means, but looks like a pittance compared to congress's current spread of -58.

Part of the reason the US system is built in such a manner is because it was conceived in an era of strong states' rights. Since the founding, the power of states has deteriorated greatly, but the system built on their prevalence persists.

The advantage of the ward/district system is that it allows for every geographic area to have an advocate. While an at-large/European system might be more willing to sacrifice a certain geographic area's good for the good of the whole, this becomes harder in the ward/district system. And in some cases, the good of a geographic minority should trump the greater good. The tyranny of the majority raised its ugly head when the state of Ohio voted to place a casino in Franklin County against the will of the residents of the county. 

While an at-large/European system is advantageous to advancing a more holistic good, it does sometimes make the mistake of overlooking the needs of geographic minorities.

What Does a City Lose When It Builds a Parking Lot?

Virtually no modern American community finds itself immune to the issue of parking. From our small town main streets to our big city downtowns, parking is an issue of discussion in village councils, city halls, coffee shops and restaurants. Consistently, car owners (who are not a mere interest group but make up a proportion of Americans tantamount to those who can identify as "women" or "white") advocate for more space for parking so that they can conveniently travel to locations in their communities.

The outcome of this conflict? A 1960 study on parking spaces showed that most major urban areas devote about half of their square mileage to streets and parking spaces. This means that about half of the space in a city is being used to support a transportation system that relies heavily on automobiles. This is space that could be used for a number of different purposes, including public parks, businesses, and especially grocery stores to combat the recent issue of urban food deserts.

Much can be said about the negative side effects of America's car culture. With gas prices skyrocketing and evidence mounting of the health and environmental dangers around fossil fuel usage, there is more than enough good reason to be skeptical of America's automobile addiction. There is also much to be said about the automobile's detraction from walking culture, a trend which has contributed to declining health of our population.

A more neglected casualty of America's car culture is the loss of community that comes from excessive reliance on cars. Someone who drives a car does not have to sit in a train car with others or mix on the thronged and common road with those who are like and unlike them, yet still a part of their community. Automobile culture makes our travel time an extension of our home life, privatizing our commutes and depriving us of an opportunity to engage with our culture and community. It is this sort of engagement with others that helps imbue us with the empathy necessary to engage in shared governance. While cars are a necessity in many cases, building a culture around them can be detrimental to the democratic spirit.

While the automobile is often revered as a tool for freedom for individuals, an unbudging fidelity to it can imprison a community. When a city builds a parking lot, it loses not only a location for a business, but also a locus for the interactions necessary for a healthy democracy.