written from Upper Rock, Wisconsin
(find your bioregion/watershed)
(find your bioregion/watershed)
|
|
|
|
|
written from Upper Rock, Wisconsin
(find your bioregion/watershed) |
||
IRV is un-green parties swallowing green votes after the election by default, and continuing on without green appeals or policies
IRV (Instant Run-off Voting) on the state level for the presidency has been suggested by several in the Green party as a route towards 'electoral change.'
However, it worthwhile or its it idiotic to promote a 'IRV as a change,' when it would create an even more secure two party context in the United States and one which would undermine third party contexts even further? Plus, it is couched in terms of being a 'solution to the third party spolier issue'. Third parties and democratic competion are spoliers?
Third parties fail to be spoliers, because they are the ones generating a competitive party context, one of the requirements of democracy.
All they are spoliling is the ability of the Democrats and the Republicans ability to gatekeep the political agenda, instead of spoling 'democracy.' It is the gatekeeping of the Democratic and Republican parties (because of a lack of competitive elections) which spoils democracy.
The irony of IRV is that it would allow the Democratic and the Republican parties to maintain this democratic spolier context more successfully by absorbing any competition. It is only third party contexts that bring out democracy, that makes majoritarian parties vaguely representative.
The two party context is the democratic spolier, and it can be changed. However, IRV only institutionalizes the two party 'minimim majoritarianism' even further. (See previous bioregional letter #10, for the difference between a 'minimum majoritarian' context of aristocratic clientelism, fear of competitive elections, and intentional voter maligning; and a 'maximum majoritarian' context of fully inclusive democracy, where parties compete, and where districts are competive.
A maximum majoritarian context is one of the requirements for having a competitive democracy.
The two party context already allows parties to minimalize and marginalize up to 50% of the voting population in their uncompetitively drawn district, and still 'win'.
This is a minimum majoritarian context and it is one of the rationales (listed in bioregional letter #10) why the Democratic and the Republican parties achieve power less by being representative, and more by simply and systematically marginalizing up to 50% of the voting population in their districts in each election.
More competitive elections would come out of proportional representation with a majoritarian allotment described in other bioregional letters, and this would lead all parties, as a requirement of competition, to appeal to more than 50% of the population.
IRV maintains the Democratic and the Republican context where elections are only run by appealing to 50% of the population, and lets unrepresentative parties coup votes without having to earn them--making IRV, in the United States two party unrepresentative context, a poor choice. It would bring out third parties into the running more: however, the votes in plurality elections would continue and would more regularly go to parties that failed to earn them--the one's that remain unrepresentative, and undeserving of the name of representative.
Preferential voting (IRV) would fails to change the context of politics.
It creates a more consolidated two party context, in the United States case.
Third parties will be maintained in their peripheral position--they will be
shut out--only successfully swallowed without having to address any green
issues. Sure, more people will vote green for their first choice, however it
allows un-green parties to ALWAYS assemble these crumbs for themselves. The
issue is the two parties themselves--and demoting them as unchallengeable
majoritarian frameworks, as well as how to make their majoritarian status
entirely up for grabs, instead of setting them further in stone as the
gatekeeper of political agendas. I've made four suggestions for this at:
www.sit.wisc.edu/~mrkdwhit/biostate/bioregional10.html
IRV further solidifies a politics based on candidacy identity (i.e., how well
they are liars) instead of environmental issues and the particularities of
geography and place.
IRV contributes to maintaining the two party context.
I wish I found this green communique below amusing. It's frankly abhorrently
stupid.
Nothing about IRV will bring third parties voices into power to balance
against Democrats or Republicans.
If anything IRV will manifest itself as
swallowing the green vote whole, without having the Democrats or Republicans
having to adjust their politics to green bailiwicks or interests/concerns.
***It's a cheap version (cheap for the Democrats/Republicans) of fusion
laws--cheap because it keep them from addressing any green issues (which are
very majority issues in the United States, according to the polls that I
see).*** I'd like to know the thinking or lack thereof about this position?' Who
or what arguments justify this proposal? What do they consider will be the
result of IRV, hypothetically? I feel that the above describes the result.
Why do the green's endlessly play at being marginal when they are in the
majority, in terms of popular appeal of issues? This forwarded message I got is
groveling--toward who?--the two parties that were collectively only able to get
around 50% of the population to vote? EVEN in districts that they
self-designed?
The issue is how to appeal to the 50% they marginalize (and divide up)
and how to set the greens up as the substitute majoritarian democrats.
Actually, the issue is how to set up any party as a majority party, instead of
only the greens. Certainly the Republicans and the Democrats fail to have that
title--they could only pull around 25% of the vote apiece. You can be assured
that IRV is the 'low road' strategy, that tramples third parties in the name of
maintaining a two party gatekeeping context on United States politics.
If anything greens should support four different changes:
>
> Four criteria and requirements for a democracy in practice--(1)
> geographically inclusive districts, (2) proportional representation with
> majoritarian allotment clause that sets up a context for 100% maximization of
> voting, (3) lack of 'special' legislation marginalizing third parties, and
> (4) 'clean elections.'
IRV may be only a symbolic, cosmetic change--particularly when there are very
variable constraints in every state that are formally placed on third parties in the United States.
I'd like to see something formal-change oriented occur, even IRV--if
only that it would open greens up to actually considering what a sustainable
political framework would look like, that would avoid marginalizing
environmental concern feedback as most 'democracies' do, because of the factors
listed above are almost all absent in all present democracies.
IRV further institutionalizes informal unchallengeable
majoritarianism, and ungeographic flashy candidates.
Greens would have had seven or so ACTUAL seats in the electoral college
this round which would lead to actual politics occurring in the United States
(i.e., deals), with proportional representation in the electoral college (on the
state level)--instead of IRV, which to me seems a version of sweeping greens
under the carpet of the unrepresentative parties in the name of making their
vote count.'
With IRV, the electoral college maintains its two party unrepresentative
context, as the Democrats and the Republicans laugh their heads off, getting to
say 'they are for reform' of the electoral college, when IRV keeps them
entirely in their unchallenged political use of the state.
I would concur that IRV would make third parties more agreeably competitive
on the local level. However, so what? Without these other four changes,
the deck is going to always be stacked on these four other levels, with IRV or without it--
unless the two party context is demoted and a third/majoritarian election context is generated.
IRV institutionalizes a two party context, and that is unsustainable politics.
Proportional representation with a majoritarian allotment
institutionalizes the contention that would make for a 'maximum majoritarianism' context, where
all parties would find it optimal to strategize to be 100% inclusive of the voting public, instead of only
finding it optimal to listen to enough to 'slide by' into office--a bare 50%. This appeal to only a bare 50%
of voters is what IRV majoritarianism maintains.
Third parties fail to be spoliers because they are the ones responsible for generating a competitive party context, one of the requirements of democracy. Without third parties, democracy fails to work informally because of the lack of electoral competition leads the majoritarian parties to 'slide by' into formal power, without actually having contenders force them (or any party) to be representative. They get to choose what they want to represent and who they want to represent, instead of having voters choose their representatives.
That is why third parties are basically illegal in the United States, with fluxing rules about their political ostracization to make sure that any bars on their participation can be raised or lowered at the Democratic or Republican Party leisure.
It is this uncompetitive two party context, which is only rarely brought into public contention and awareness because of the lack of required third parties, makes the two party context a democratic spolier. This two party context can be changed to institutionalize competitive majoritarian/third party contexts in which any of them would be able to win elections. Without election contention, the Democratic Party or the Republican Party can entirely tailor the political agenda to themselves. IRV only institutionalizes two party 'minimum majoritarianism' even further, and thus the two party clientelism on the formal state level that leads to a demotion of democratic, competitive elections. (See previous bioregional letter #10, for the differene between a 'minimum majoritarian' context and a 'maximum majoritarian' context, and why a maximum majoritarian context is one of the requirements for having a competitive democracy.)
In short, the two party uncompetitive context is maintained by IRV, and it allows parties to minimalizes and marginalize 50% of the voting population and swallow automatically any party vote that dares to challenge them. In other words, the Democratic and Republican parties can ignore green issues, though coup the green votes that give a plurality win context, without having to integrate or listen to these issues.
How is IRV useful when it basically institutionalizes the swallowing up of green votes by parties that can run on un-green platforms, and still coup green votes regardless?
Regards,
Mark Whitaker
University of Wisconsin-Madison
At 06:23 PM 11/23/00 -0800, you wrote:
>Contact Dona Spring 510 649-0330
>
>Nov. 12, 2000
>
>Press release: Green Party calls for national system of preferential
>voting to avoid future so called "spoiler role'"
>
>Democrats have throughout the presidential campaign accused the Green Party
>as playing a spoiler role. There has been however little criticism of the
>critical role in our democracy that Ralph Nader's message and positions on
>issues have contributed. The primary criticism of Nader is his claim that
>there is little difference between the Democrats and Republicans. While
>people and pundits can debate the merits of this position, it is great that
>Nader has got people thinking about what the real differences are between
>the two candidates for president. What is amazing through all this debate is
>that people don't examine our system to find ways to have diverse opinions
>expressed to enhance our democracy instead of possibly "spoiling it".
>
>The Green party has supported forms of proportional representation including
>preferential voting a.k.a. instant runoff voting. For example, in the
>presidential race, a voter would be free to vote for his or her first choice
>for president and also indicate their second choice so that if the voters
>first choice candidate does not get enough votes to win, then the voter's
>vote would go to his or her second choice for president. Take the recent
>election, where Nader got three percent of the votes nationwide, if two
>percent of those voters preferred Gore, then those votes would be cast for
>Gore and he would be the next president of the United States. Preferential
>voting would be especially critical in-states like Florida, which because of
>the electoral college will determine the next president of the United
>States.
>
>Democracy is always best served by giving citizens choices in their
>selection for candidates to govern them. That way reform candidates like
>Ralph Nader and parties like the Green Party will be able to participate in
>presidential elections without having to play a so-called " spoiler role".
>
>We urge the US congressional legislature to explore requiring preferential
>voting to serve the nation's democracy. We now have the technology to
>accomplish such a choice, all we need is the political will to implement it.
>
>Few can dispute the validity of the profound criticisms that Ralph Nader
>made of the way elections are conducted and paid for. The fact that the two
>party candidates did not differ substantially on the issues of NAFTA, GATT,
>so-called " free trade", health care, death penalty, military spending,
>corporate welfare and poverty issues like ending welfare. There will
>continue to be voices expressing different positions on these issues and
>others in which there is virtually little difference between the two
>parties. So if Democrats and Republicans wish to avoid "spoilers" in the
>future, be they Ralph Nader or Ross Perot, they would be wise to take up the
>issue of preferential voting.
>
link to a map of the present congressional districts of the United States
link to a map of the majoritarian districts of Wisconsin, compared to the bioregions of Wisconsin
link to www.fairvote.org, where you can see the irregular majoritarian districts.
Choose 'redistricting.' This site discusses the degree to which they are uncompetitive as well, with 60+ Congressional representatives and senators 'returning' to Congress without having been challenged when they 'ran' for election. There were over 90 of them in 1996. For a sense of scale, there are only 535 members of Congress total (435 House; 100 Senate). The size of the Congress is adjusted occassionally. The House of Representatives has been at 435 since 1910. Additionally, incumbency as a phenomenon is over 90% in the United States as well. There is very little 'running' for office in the United States. Why is this so? Some of this was explained above. See the other pages for more.
other pages on the bioregional state, keep reading them in order (recommended)
or
