|
|
|
|
|
|
by squiggleblaz
3108 days ago
|
|
|
Duverger's law isn't the whole picture. Normal FPTP assemblies the size of America's have third parties (see Canada, UK, India). Some PR countries have strong two party systems (see most obviously Malta). There is something additional in America that causes a two party system which may or may not continue past a switch to PR because we don't know what it is. Also, it is good to specify your goals. You might want to make it easier for unconnected people to enter the assembly, or to make it easier to throw out the choice of the primary voters, or literally just a more fragmented assembly. It is easier to come up with useful compromises if you specify your specific objectives because not every system of PR will have any of those goals. Closed list PR with primaries is probably the antithesis of what you want, but it's an extremely common kind and what a lot of people hear when you say "PR". |
|
|
Over simplistically:
#1 - Our FPTP elections leads to two major parties.
#2 - Our gerrymandered districts (local, state, congressional) has led to increased partisanship. As noted elsewhere, because contests are won during the low-turnout primaries where the motivated base participates.
#3 - Ever increasing campaign costs has led to concentrated influence (power law distribution of attention). Who ever controls the contributions controls the agenda.
#4 - We have city, district, county, state, federal elections. The party system starts at the bottom. Memories are long and defections are never forgiven (eg Nader & Green Party).
Having now done it... Everyone should run for office, at least once. Because most commentary, complaining isn't even wrong.
My goal, always, is to empower, enfranchise people. The various reforms I support increase voter choice and participation. At every level by various (sometimes non-intuitive) means.