My Main Page with Links to My Other
Book Reviews
Real Choices/New Voices
by Douglass J. Amy
"Pollsters manufacture bland slogans, then test them in polls
to see which ones voters like. The ones voters like become
the 'values agenda' that politicians use. Popular ones
include: "Finding common ground," "Standing up for what
is right," "Opportunities for all Americans," and, most
notably "Doing what's right, even when it is
unpopular"--ironically a slogan that itself was the
product of rigorous polling to ensure it was popular."
--Daniel Casse in Policy Review (ironically a magazine
that has little to do with policy and ought to be called
Vague, One-Sided Ideology Review.)
A splendid and well-organized argument, Real Choices
explains what is wrong with our current winner-take-all
voting system. Amy argues that the best alternative to our
single-member plurality system is a system of proportional
representation (PR).
Amy points out the serious flaws in our democracy:
· Institutions that are supposed to spread and strengthen
democracy--schools, media--weaken it.
· Duopoly by two winner-take-all political parties.
· Senate is not representative by population.
· Judges are unelected officials with too much power
over laws and law enforcement.
· Senate filibuster rules.
· Lobbying laws and campaign laws are little more than
legalized bribery.
· Commitee processes in legislatures.
· Presidency selected by electoral rather than popular vote.
· Processes for reforming constitution are nearly impossible.
· Gerrymandering.
In addition on some issues the two major
parties share nearly identical views. On other issues only
two alternatives are covered while better alternatives are
ignored. Democrats and Republicans win every election.
Being the minority party in a legislature of two parties is
like getting second prize rather than punished. Both parties
make third parties--meaning in this case ordinary citizens--pay.
Women and minority politicians are underrepresented, though
some of this is due to other factors. Turnout by voters is poor,
though Amy is careful to point out that additional factors
cause low turnout.
Campaigns lack or evade issues. Danial Cisse has writes
that in the minds of many voters the word issues has even come
to mean "themes" carried by buzzwords and slogans.
When politicians are being extra-super vague, some voters
would prefer that they merely be super vague. Steve Forbes,
Casse writes, tried the single issue flat tax campaign in 1996.
It was replaced in 2000 with the buzzword "freedom." Perhaps
in 2004 his campaign will consist of a single letter that will
represent all things good. Third parties can at least raise issues.
Several types of proportional representation exist. In a party
list system parties get seats based on the percentage of the
vote they get. In some versions of party list systems voters
may choose their preferences for candidates. Thus, 32 percent
of the vote earns a party 32 percent of the seats with the seats
being filled by that party's candidates who got the most votes.
Less common is the single transferable vote system. In the
STV voters rank candidates similar to the way college football
teams are ranked. A formula is then used to calculate a winner.
Amy explains the formula. I will not.
He also makes some good points that are not widely known.
Gerrymandering is often bipartisan. Democrats and Republicans
collude to create safe districts for incumbents in both parties.
Add to that the huge money and name recognition advantages
incumbents enjoy, and it is easy to see why legislators rarely
lose their jobs. If one party rule is the instant recipe for corruption
and incompetence, two party rule is the long term recipe for
corruption and incompetence.
Amy is overconfident of proportional representation's impact
on issueless campaigns though. If voters do not demand finance reform
and specific policies on specific issues, minor parties can hide
in fuzzy rhetoric just as easily. Mindless blather and horse race
coverage by the media may be due solely to factors outside
the voting system. If voters vote against candidates merely
because the candidate's take an "offensive" specific stand
on more than zero issues, if citizens are merely a collection
of litmus tests, I do not see how proportional representation
can repair that problem.
Amy asserts that votes for candidates with almost no chance
of winning are wasted votes. I call them low influence votes.
On rare occasions main party politicians do shift their policies
to attract the votes that might otherwise go the third parties.
Other flaws of this work:
· Fails to emphasize that policy stands are an important
part of moral character.
· Too spectrum oriented. Spectrums are shallow. He
compares Italy with the United States by placing Italian
parties on a spectrum. One of the best benefits of a
proportional system is parties and candidates who
do not fit on neat, little spectrums.
To those who say that his system would be too complex, Amy replies that a proportional system is easy once people get a small amount of familiarity. Some claim that proportional systems lead to unstable governments. Amy looks at democratic countries and finds almost no correlation or causal relationship between instability and proportional government. Some of the most unstable countries use our system. Instability is probably due to other factors. Another counter argument says that proportional systems encourage verbal conflict. Good! Another claim says that there would be too much emphasis on parties rather than candidates. Amy disabuses us of that notion. Many versions of proportional representation emphasize candidates. Last, PR ideas could foster extremism. Yes, the good kind--the kind that stands up for truth and justice. The current system caters to bad extremists. Some PR systems are complex, but they have at least one thing in common: They are better than the current system. Amy has done a great job with complex ideas. Highly recommended.
Book review by J.T. Fournier.
My Main Page with Links to My Other Book Reviews