Multi Party Democracy in a Presidential Republic in America Part Two

A multi party system can happen without a proportional representation system, but it is hard to do it and tends to still create single party majorities at any particular time in space. So, to make this imagination a reality, let's look at proportional electoral systems. 

CPGGrey has made a series on this, so watch that first to get an understanding of the idea, link here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo&list=PLNCHVwtpeBY4mybPkHEnRxSOb7FQ2vF9c. Grey does have a few things he doesn't cover though, such as the possibility of open lists or list-free MMP systems and doesn't explain what a party list system is without any local districts, be they open list or closed list. He also doesn't explain the methods of which you can use to transfer votes in Single Transferable Votes when you have a surplus, and while he has a good reason for doing so in the name of time, it did generate a lot of comments. It is also possible in a mixed member proportional system to have methods other than first past the post to choose the local candidate, you may have a runoff or a ranked ballot, among others. 

The idea of organized parties with parties having a list of candidates in a specific order, even in no order, can generally be hard to imagine these days. People are obsessed with superdelegates in the quadrennial DNC for president. So let's assume that for this type of political reform, all elections in political elections in America are now held with single transferable vote, with the caveat that if only one candidate is on the ballot, the question is yes or no, accept them or not (reopening nominations if the majority is no), with the secret ballot. Single transferable vote has no party lists, and mathematically treats all candidates identically and at no stage of the count is anything other than the votes cast for a candidate considered, and so I suspect that this is closer to what most Americans would want. 

Let's make an assumption with district magnitude that 5 member districts are used, unless where it absolutely has to, use 4 or three member districts. They are harder to gerrymander inherently as gerrymandering needs wasted votes, so a legislative redistricting can work well, but an independent commission like California's will probably be more inclusive.

This statement has some interesting consequences. In an election for governor or senator or for the president, or a special election for a legislative position, this means that the quota is now a majority of the votes. If the legislature is otherwise fractured and multiple parties and independents regularly get elected, with rivals and contenders for the election coming from every angle from other and current governors and state executive positions, sometimes state judges as Roy Moore was, influential congresspeople, they might all try their hand at the position, and could make the ballot very competitive whereas it normally isn't in Australia for their lower house where the control over candidacy is more restricted to a party's internal workings and they don't have as many springboard positions from which one might try to seek election. Today, such elections don't even have as many primary challengers. 

Speaking of primaries, they count under this definition too, and so you would be electing the candidates with STV too. These could be open or closed, but it's not hard to change party affiliation, and involves no real devotion or membership fees, so you will still end up with many thousands of voters for the primaries either way and not likely to be needing to be loyal to the party boss. 

A party trying to primary out an incumbent or dissident faction within their party has a harder time trying to do so, as the candidate only needs a droop quota to be sure of winning renomination. The same goes for any outside group such as a PAC or a sudden faction within a party, like the TEA Party candidates in 2010. The candidate may well end up still on the ballot for the general election and could win based on their support among the voters in general and not other factions within their party, so the control of the party's legislative and executive leaders on the candidates may diminish. This doesn't apply though for a single winner position, but even then, they may be able to run as an independent, they are likely to be common like in Ireland. Senator Lieberman won this way after being defeated in a primary, and so a primary will not necessarily mean that a candidate is out for good in the same election year if they can build a base of support outside their party. 

With say 5 candidates running for a congressional district from each party, sometimes 3 or 4 though, the voters in the general election have lots of options to pick within a party too, potentially helping the factions they agree with, perhaps prioritizing someone of their geographic closeness, sometimes voting strategically for women or minorities if they're into that, all sorts of options. 

In any given election, you could easily end up with more than five parties, maybe ten, and probably at least a contingent of independents. With a standard of five seats open, likely only an incumbent or the star candidate of a party having a realistic chance of getting a full quota on the first ballot (and even then, many will fail to do so and it's not a dependable base for most politicians). You will need to appeal beyond this likely small base of supporters, and your own party members will not necessarily transfer their preferences to you, nor are you necessarily the favourite of your own party even in your own district, and their volunteers may not always help you. The county and district committees of the parties won't always be aligned with you, and given that they would be elected independently in the primary in their own right by STV too, they answer to the party's membership proportionally and only a minority of them will regularly support you. So making yourself unique even within your party is going to be important to win. Being just the same as any other politician isn't good enough, and nor is the R or D beside your name.

Joe Biden is currently being accused of varying forms of sexual harassment and other sexual misconduct. It's early to speculate on whether he has in fact done this or not, but it's already having an effect on politics and the nomination. If your party has nominated 5 candidates in a district, if any of them have any mishaps, injuries, coming down with any illness or healthcare problems, or is accused seriously of major problems of this nature, it's safe for a party to withdraw support, much safer than it is today where you gamble on a single candidate in virtually all elections. It's not healthy to put so much on one person, and you also are likely to fall into a trap of thinking that all politicians are the same or that you should be vitriolically hating the other side's candidates and ignore anything wrong with your own side's candidates. STV allows you to have more flexibility here. 

If a vacancy arises, someone needs to replace them. An STV system has some options as to helping you with doing that. House terms are short, and so it can often be the case that a special election takes months, a large fraction of the time that the full term. California is having a special election in a few days for the second round of their top two primary in district 25, and at this point it seems somewhat like beating a dead horse, given the general election is going to happen in November and now it's May. In STV, you could instead go back and get the original ballots, eliminate the candidate who has vacated their position for any reason, transfer their votes to the next preference, and start counting again until you find the next new person to be elected. This can be done in a few days, and so instead of waiting months for a special election, with the time, energy, short term, and the money this takes, it can be resolved quick at basically no expense, and no need for a special election. If your presidential candidate has to drop out, they can count back the votes in the same way. 

For a governor or president or mayor, it's normal to see some executive accomplishments they made or policy proposals they want, the kind of people they will use their discretion to appoint, the executive orders they will use, what they will veto. But for a senator in federal elections with a set district magnitude of one senator up for election at any given time in a state, proportional representation can't apply and there is little promise of what one single senator can do. So this can be a hard thing to campaign for. But if everyone else uses STV, it means that lots of other people are in a position of wanting your job, likely a strong primary challenger from several opponents. So the senatorial elections might show that you depend on a much bigger coalition and have to work a lot harder for your position than many senators do today where many can skip by with over 60% of the vote, some over 2/3 of the votes. Now most would likely be marginal, and will need to satisfy a broader coalition of parties. 

Electors for the electoral college would also be suddenly chosen competitively, and you could be voting for factions within your party, and the electors in their own name get elected proportionally, so a president would benefit by say a centre right push into California or a centre left inching into Wyoming. All states have at least 3 electors and so as long as you can assemble more than 25% of the votes, you are sure of one elector for your side. And parties dominating in a state have a reason to be vigorous in maintaining that dominance and gaining additional electors if they can, they might not necessarily make up for it elsewhere. So the geographic spread of the presidential election focus could radically shift here. Let's assume again that the district magnitude is 3-5, normally 5, rarely 3 or 4, and so the electors will personally be known to a lot more people most likely. But in the general election and the voting day in December for the electors, they might not support the party's final nominee, as they themselves are proportionally elected in the primary. This could turn interesting

Now we have legislators and some idea of the executive branch's identity. Next post will show how this influences things beyond the election itself in November.