Terry McAuliffe wrote me today to ask my views of the 2004 election. Here is what I wrote back:
The main issue facing a divided America is not the economy, the environment, social issues, or the war in Iraq. It is how we elect our representatives, be it president, senator, representative, or even the city council. In a winner take all system that we have, there is no room for special topic parties. Therefore, the Republicans and Democrats both have to pander to special interests. In the election aftermath there was a lot of talk about by the media about what the democratic party has to do to win. How to recapture the south and rural voters? How to do that and not lose it loyal base of liberals. It is not right.
This is a big country - we even have three national anthems - surely there is room for more than two political parties. Then the rural and southern masses that are educated in more by their clergy than by academics (hmm, why does that sound familiar?) could vote for a party called the Southern Democratic Christian Party, perhaps headed by Zell Miller. The gun-toting NRA-following animal-killing rightwing could vote for a party called the 2nd Amendment Party. Etc. These parties would likely pull votes away from the Republicans and Democrats. However, in a winner-take-all system no one would vote for these parties. Both the Green and Libertarian parties are legitimate political parties, but very few people vote for them. Why? Because nobody supports their views? I don't think so. It is because in a winner-take-all system voting for these parties is tantamount to throwing away your vote. So you hope that your major party candidate can be all-to-everyone and be elected and still give priority to your hot button issue, while remember that he pandered to those that think $2/gal gasoline is a problem and not a solution.
True electoral reform would require that those who vote for smaller parties receive a representation equivalent to their popular appeal. Thus, if the Green party were to obtain 10% of the vote, they should have 10% of congress. If the Southern Democratic Christian Party received 15%, they should have 15% of congress. Etc.
Otherwise you will have to morph the Democrats and Republicans even closer together. The Democrats will have to become pro-life, anti-gun-control, gay bashing, etc. Because it is those hot=button issues that decide elections these days more than the economy, security, the environment, Iraq. And when the Democrats and Republicans have so come together we could just elect our leaders in the same fashion as student governments are elected around the country - who is beter looking, who is more athletic, who has the richer friends. After all, that seems to be as important.
Sorry about the rant - but I feel pretty disenfranchised right now.
Comments