We're stuck in a badly designed game that makes minor parties dangerous and irrelevant, except for their ability to spoil a two-party race like Trump v Harris.
Hi, thank you, I’m always learning from your writing.
About “Countries that have well-designed multi-party systems, like Germany, tend to have less polarized populations—not that they are immune to rightwing populism, but such parties don’t get total power when they get when they capture 20% of the public, unlike here.”
I’m on my way out of Germany after 4 yrs here. Politically and socially Germany is not pluralistic or multicultural and is as conservative and more homogeneous than the US GOP constituency, despite Germany having a large proportion of ‘Germans with a migrant background’ (translation from the German for non-dual German heritage parents). The multi-party system and electoral system isn’t giving rise to more democratic outcomes (or perhaps I never really understood what democratic is), possibly because Germany doesn’t have term limits for state and federal presidents—which entrenches incumbents and cronyism. Some parties do capture more than 20%, usually the CDU/CSU (the C stands for Christian). Living under these new to me coalition governance systems initially brought me hope but the reality is more stagnation/tradition than progress.
I didn't say it was perfect! However, scholars of comparative politics have found that countries with multi-party systems have lower overall levels of polarization because party leaders are accustomed to needing to form coalitions and share power, and thus they tone down their rhetoric, and their partisans are accustomed to their party sharing power with other parties.
As has been stated many, many times, the danger that the candidacies of Stein and West pose to Harris is almost entirely due to the Biden administration's refusal to take effective action to stop Israel's war on Gaza. Presumably the Harris people understand this. It may be that 3rd party people in swing states will be persuaded, as the election nears, to vote for Harris as the lesser evil. But a Ryan Grim report on Arab-American voters in Michigan finds that these voters will stay the course and not vote or vote 3rd party. So the Harris/Biden people must weigh the risk of losing the presidential election against the potential costs of modifying their support for Israel's war. Harris supporters who oppose the war should be raising a clamor for Biden/Harris to make some antiwar moves, not just talk. Will Harris supporters speak up about the war? Will Biden/Harris change course before November? I am pessimistic.
Frank: A couple of points in response. 1. I fully agree that Biden ought to suspend offensive weapons deliveries to Israel, but we should recognize that this may not stop Netanyahu and his far-right government. There's some magical thinking going on among people who believe that the US can command Israel to do whatever we say. 2. We should also recognize that Biden is dealing, at least in part, with a mess he inherited from Trump, who killed the Iran nuclear deal. There is a rising camp inside the Iranian regime that thinks maybe this--the post Oct 7 turmoil--is their opportunity to annihilate Israel (god help us if they get stronger). 3. As I have written here multiple times, the left in the US started out after Oct 7 by choosing only one side of the Israel/Palestine binary to uplift, not realizing that this would also strengthen the so-called "pro-Israel" faction in American politics. Had the left instead built a peace movement instead of a pro-Palestine movement, one that included liberal Jewish leaders in Congress instead of pushing them away for not being anti-Zionist enough, we might now be in a stronger position to get the White House to be tougher on Bibi. Threatening to spoil Harris' election is a weak hand to play, not a strong one. 4. Let's leave aside Stein's incoherent and inconsistent foreign policy posture on such topics as Russia, Syria, etc. 5. Ryan Grim is first and foremost an activist, not a journalist. I respect that he has great access to useful sources, but ever since he decided to bet his career on hyping onesided coverage of the conflict, I take his political prognostications with a grain of salt. 6. Harris has more than one path to an electoral victory and it may turn out that she can win while losing Michigan.
Why fusion voting instead of a shift to a parliamentary system? Is it because it is a smaller, more achievable step towards including more voices/perspectives? Or do you think there are disadvantages with a parliamentary system that fusion voting avoids?
Precisely. There is a path to reviving fusion in more states that starts with winning lawsuits, like the one the NJ Moderate Party has filed. And if those succeed and more fusion parties form, then the demand for a shift to a proportional system will have some real legs. Today it's just a far-off dream.
This is fantastic - thank you for introducing me to fusion voting. I'd love to get involved; will read the article and look for ways to do so after November.
Another option is for progressive activists to reshape the Democratic Party from within - as conservative activists organized by the New Right reshaped the Republican Party under Ronald Reagan. Jesse Jackson's Presidential campaigns brought a wave of progressive activists into the Democratic Party - including the powerful black women who backed Kamala Harris for VP and President. More recently, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren brough another new wave. Next year we could recruit and elect progressives in local races across the country - and keep pushing Democrats to the left.
Well, that's what factions inside both major parties believe and are trying to do. Unfortunately they feed off each other, and in the case of the MAGA faction, they've fully captured one major party to disastrous effect. Were fusion legal, we'd probably have a five-party system with the two major parties flanked on their respective right/left, plus a fulcrum party in the center, and occasional one-issue parties arising when there's significant need for attention to some issue that is being generally ignored. I think that scenario would be more vibrant, less polarizing, and frankly more fun than the grind we have now.
Hi, thank you, I’m always learning from your writing.
About “Countries that have well-designed multi-party systems, like Germany, tend to have less polarized populations—not that they are immune to rightwing populism, but such parties don’t get total power when they get when they capture 20% of the public, unlike here.”
I’m on my way out of Germany after 4 yrs here. Politically and socially Germany is not pluralistic or multicultural and is as conservative and more homogeneous than the US GOP constituency, despite Germany having a large proportion of ‘Germans with a migrant background’ (translation from the German for non-dual German heritage parents). The multi-party system and electoral system isn’t giving rise to more democratic outcomes (or perhaps I never really understood what democratic is), possibly because Germany doesn’t have term limits for state and federal presidents—which entrenches incumbents and cronyism. Some parties do capture more than 20%, usually the CDU/CSU (the C stands for Christian). Living under these new to me coalition governance systems initially brought me hope but the reality is more stagnation/tradition than progress.
I didn't say it was perfect! However, scholars of comparative politics have found that countries with multi-party systems have lower overall levels of polarization because party leaders are accustomed to needing to form coalitions and share power, and thus they tone down their rhetoric, and their partisans are accustomed to their party sharing power with other parties.
As has been stated many, many times, the danger that the candidacies of Stein and West pose to Harris is almost entirely due to the Biden administration's refusal to take effective action to stop Israel's war on Gaza. Presumably the Harris people understand this. It may be that 3rd party people in swing states will be persuaded, as the election nears, to vote for Harris as the lesser evil. But a Ryan Grim report on Arab-American voters in Michigan finds that these voters will stay the course and not vote or vote 3rd party. So the Harris/Biden people must weigh the risk of losing the presidential election against the potential costs of modifying their support for Israel's war. Harris supporters who oppose the war should be raising a clamor for Biden/Harris to make some antiwar moves, not just talk. Will Harris supporters speak up about the war? Will Biden/Harris change course before November? I am pessimistic.
Frank: A couple of points in response. 1. I fully agree that Biden ought to suspend offensive weapons deliveries to Israel, but we should recognize that this may not stop Netanyahu and his far-right government. There's some magical thinking going on among people who believe that the US can command Israel to do whatever we say. 2. We should also recognize that Biden is dealing, at least in part, with a mess he inherited from Trump, who killed the Iran nuclear deal. There is a rising camp inside the Iranian regime that thinks maybe this--the post Oct 7 turmoil--is their opportunity to annihilate Israel (god help us if they get stronger). 3. As I have written here multiple times, the left in the US started out after Oct 7 by choosing only one side of the Israel/Palestine binary to uplift, not realizing that this would also strengthen the so-called "pro-Israel" faction in American politics. Had the left instead built a peace movement instead of a pro-Palestine movement, one that included liberal Jewish leaders in Congress instead of pushing them away for not being anti-Zionist enough, we might now be in a stronger position to get the White House to be tougher on Bibi. Threatening to spoil Harris' election is a weak hand to play, not a strong one. 4. Let's leave aside Stein's incoherent and inconsistent foreign policy posture on such topics as Russia, Syria, etc. 5. Ryan Grim is first and foremost an activist, not a journalist. I respect that he has great access to useful sources, but ever since he decided to bet his career on hyping onesided coverage of the conflict, I take his political prognostications with a grain of salt. 6. Harris has more than one path to an electoral victory and it may turn out that she can win while losing Michigan.
great column!
Why fusion voting instead of a shift to a parliamentary system? Is it because it is a smaller, more achievable step towards including more voices/perspectives? Or do you think there are disadvantages with a parliamentary system that fusion voting avoids?
Precisely. There is a path to reviving fusion in more states that starts with winning lawsuits, like the one the NJ Moderate Party has filed. And if those succeed and more fusion parties form, then the demand for a shift to a proportional system will have some real legs. Today it's just a far-off dream.
This is fantastic - thank you for introducing me to fusion voting. I'd love to get involved; will read the article and look for ways to do so after November.
Another option is for progressive activists to reshape the Democratic Party from within - as conservative activists organized by the New Right reshaped the Republican Party under Ronald Reagan. Jesse Jackson's Presidential campaigns brought a wave of progressive activists into the Democratic Party - including the powerful black women who backed Kamala Harris for VP and President. More recently, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren brough another new wave. Next year we could recruit and elect progressives in local races across the country - and keep pushing Democrats to the left.
Well, that's what factions inside both major parties believe and are trying to do. Unfortunately they feed off each other, and in the case of the MAGA faction, they've fully captured one major party to disastrous effect. Were fusion legal, we'd probably have a five-party system with the two major parties flanked on their respective right/left, plus a fulcrum party in the center, and occasional one-issue parties arising when there's significant need for attention to some issue that is being generally ignored. I think that scenario would be more vibrant, less polarizing, and frankly more fun than the grind we have now.