Fixing Democracy in the U.S.A.

In "Third parties don't have a chance", Bruce Bartlett provides some interesting thoughts on the (non)viability of third parties for U.S. federal elections - and a suggestion as to how to give them life:

One reform I have long favored that is more doable would be to allow third party votes to be aggregated with those on major party lines. This can be done in 10 states, according to the New Majority Education Fund (www.nmef.org). Most prominent is New York, which has long had an influential Conservative Party, Liberal Party and Right to Life Party. When a major party candidate is endorsed by one of these third parties, votes on their line are added to his vote total. This makes their endorsement valuable and gives third parties more influence without upsetting the basic electoral system.

There are, of course, other means to the same end, but Bartlett's suggestion has the benefits pretty simple, understandable, and has proved itself to at least some degree in the states Bartlett described.

And, while whining about the fact that the Supreme Court upheld campaign finance reform, Jonah Goldberg presents the suggestion that redistricting problems can be fixed by enlarging Congress:

I don't know if we should have districts of 30,000 these days. That would create a Congress of more than 8,000 representatives. But a couple thousand wouldn't be a bad way to start.

I'm all for a larger Congress, having enjoyed a much closer relationship to and understanding of my provincial and federal legislators when living in Canada. However, larger isn't always better - and any change in the number of Members of Congress should be associated with a long-overdue federal reform of redistricting - as otherwise a map of Congressional districts for the new, larger Congress is likely to look like a spilled bowl of spaghetti. I think the present emphasis should be on redistricting reform.

A side note - I like Jonah's introductory line, "everyone who understands the First Amendment was rightly having conniptions...." I don't like it because it is fair or accurate, but because it is quite the opposite. It is a little trick I have sometimes used myself - but only in debates where my opponent is not sufficiently intelligent to pick up on the underlying logical fallacy. It's a preemptive version of "when did you stop beating your wife". Within this context, whatever the merit of the campaign finance reform decision, I would venture that the five Supreme Court justices who voted for reform understand the Constitution far better than Goldberg ever will.

[Update - Dec. 21, 2003 - Lawrence Kestenbaum has provided a highly relevant caution about Bartlett's idea, and how it can result in a significant loss of choice for voters, in the comments section.]

Comments