A Voter's Manifesto
(Amendments 28, 29 & 30)
Adapted from Richard Anderson-Connolly, in A Voter's Manifesto and emended by John Francis Lee
Put most simply we assert the following argument:
The politicians in the two parties created a political-economic system that strengthened the initial advantage of the economic elite. The ever-wealthier elite strengthened their control over both parties.
- For various historical reasons ordinary people have been weak relative to the economic elite in the US.
- Plurality voting, with its problem of vote-splitting, created our two-party system.
- Both parties became captured by the stronger economic elite.
This duopoly sytem has put us in an endless loop:
- The economic elite control the politicians in both parties;
- the politicians pass laws that maintain or expand the power of the economic elite.
Our voting system explains the rise of the duopoly: Under a system with single-member-districts, plurality vote-splitting among those who are ideologically similar could give the victory to the least preferred candidate and thus favors the evolution of our two party system. It makes sense for ideological blocs to congeal around only two parties to prevent this dysfunction. And once established, the forces of tradition and inertia strengthen the rational basis. This phenomenon even has a name : Duverger's Law.
If indeed the two-party system, easily dominated by an economic elite is the central problem then it follows that an indomitable multiparty democracy is the only solution. Duverger's law also specifies the alternative: Proportional representation, or a majority vote over multiple ballots, are two systems which both produce more than two viable parties.
Imagine what would happen in November if we had either proportional representation or majority vote over multiple ballots. New parties on the left, right, and center would spring into existence – tradition be damned! Both the Democrats and the Republicans would get the thrashing they deserve and there would be no talk of an enthusiasm gap!
Many people, while able to acknowledge the failings of the Republicans, the Democrats, and the two-party system, still generally respond with some type of pooh-pooh towards proportional representation. Isn't proportional representation unconstitutional? Or, nice idea, but it won't work because we don't have a parliament.
In fact neither these nor any other fundamental objection exists with regard to proportional representation. The House of Representatives could move to a version of proportional representation simply by repealing a 1967 law that mandates single-member districts. House delegations from each state could be elected at large. Or large states like California could be broken into two, three, or four multi-member districts. (The Senate, on the other hand, is essentially our House of Lords and should be similarly debilitated or abolished outright.)
A majority vote over two, or more, ballots does not have to deal with either of these objections and silently handles the Senate case as well. All that's needed is the passage of a law requiring a majority vote to fill any federal office, coupled with traditional runoff elections or so-called 'instant runoff' voting (IRV).
Additional complexity introduced by an increased number of viable parties is illusary, whether elected officials work under a parliamentary system or something like the US Congress. If no party receives a majority then several parties simply caucus together.
Instant runoff voting would be even easier to effect than proportional representation because it does not require a switch to multi-member districts but simply the ranking of candidates on the ballot.
Traditional runoff voting is the least controversial of all and the easiest to implement.
So where do we stand?
Our country is suffering from the corporate dominance of our political duopoly. The cause of the disease is plurality voting and the two-party system it brings into being. If we continue on this course the prognosis is full-blown corporatocracy or fascism.
The cure is the greater political and economic equality that flow from a multiparty democracy which can be realized by adopting either proportional representation or majority voting with runoff elections.
What is to be done?
This site is actively advocating for the Uniform Election amendment :
An unrestricted majority vote to decide all elected federal positions with runoff elections until a majority of votes cast is achieved by a single, victorious candidate in the case of the House and Senate, or pair of candidates in the case of President/Vice President.That's it.
We believe that prescription will achieve our ends with minimum required change. We also advocate for the Recall, Referendum, and Initiative and Campaign Finance amendments - they all stand independently, but their total effect will be greater than the sum of their parts.
Our central message is that we must reject the trap of the lesser-of-two-evils.
Democrats and Republicans are both racing us toward corporate rule. If two cars are both racing toward a collapsed bridge one can hardly get excited about jumping to the vehicle that seems to be losing the race.
We can make sense of our times only by recognizing that the root of our problem is a two-party system that has been completely captured by the economic elite.
The solution will not be found by making the 'better' choice among the two available bad options but rather by transforming the system into a genuine multiparty democracy.
Richard Anderson-Connolly is an Associate Professor of Comparative Sociology at the University of Puget Sound in Tacoma. He can be reached at: raconnolly@pugetsound.edu. John Francis Lee is Just Another Bozo On The Bus. He can be reached at: jfl@28amen.org
[Recall, Referendum and Initiative Amendment][Campaign Finance Amendment][Uniform Election Amendment]
If you have comments or suggestions, email me at jfl@28amen.org
[USpvp.org]