3 > 2. How do other countries deal with multi-party systems?

Here in the United States, we have a two-party system. But to be more accurrate, we have a winner-take-all, first-past-the-post voting system for nearly all our elections. Now, everyone (or nearly everyone, I'm sure the executive committees of the GOP and DNC don't) complain about the two-party system, and how we need more choices at the ballot box. Here in the US, the GOP and DNC choose not to change the voting system to accomodate the wishes of the electorate. Some states do have delayed-runoff voting, where if no candidate receives a majority (50% + 1) of the votes, a runoff election occurs between the top two vote-getters. The result is added tax-payer expense, low voter turnout, and no real challenge to the two-party monopoly on power.

While this blog has had posts about IRV (Instant Runoff Voting) before, but how do other countries deal with a multi-party democracy? As it turns out, there are a lot of options.

Proportional Representation: This article at Boston Review sums up proportional representation nicely - the basic principle is that voters would choose a party instead of an individual candidate, and a given party would win seats in the legislature in proportion to the percentage of the votes it earns. In a 100 seat legislature, a party that gets 7% of the vote would receive 7 seats. So in this system, there is a prize for coming in second, third, fourth, fifth, etc.

Mixed Member Proportional Representation: Because you can always count on the Germans to come up with a short, catchy name for something. Half the seats are allocated using single-seate constituencies (US Congressional elections use this method). The other half of the seats are allocated based on a form of proportional representation, with a 5% threshhold. At the individual voter level, each voter casts two vote, one for an individual candidate, and one for a party. In the US that would translate for a voter having the option of voting for a third party candidate, and for a major party.

This is just a sample of how other countries deal with more than two parties without it being an issue of "spoiling."

We can do better in our country.

---

Daryl Northrop

Comments

[Dale Sheldon-Hess]

Have you ever looked at approval voting or score voting? Because they, unlike IRV, actually *could* foster a more-than-two-party democracy.

I was actually in the middle of writing a post to my own blog, with a similar ("3 > 2") title. Sadly, it's not quite done, so I hope this suffices:

http://leastevil.blogspot.com/2009/06/presented.html

Anyway, I don't want to just harp on IRV's shortcomings; so let me give a big thumbs-up to proportional representation!

[Daryl Northrop]

Dale - thanks for your comment! I look forward to reading your post. IRV is not perfect, but one of its main advantages is that it does not require constitutional amendments to state constitutions or to the federal constitution.

Again, thanks for commenting!

Daryl

[libhomo]

I'm concerned by IRV because I think it will solidify the positions of the two biggest parties. I suspect most Democrats would make the GOP their second choice, especially if the Greens were able to get enough support of liberals in the party to be their first choice.

I wonder if people should start proposing that the Senate be populated by proportional representation.

[Daryl Northrop]

Lib - I see what you are saying. However, I have a different idea - I suspect a considerable amount of people who regularly vote democratic, would put the Green Party as their first choice. While that may not initially increase the number of offices held by the Greens, our vote %'s would likely increase dramatically.

Going PR in the Senate and/or House is an attractive option, however, it would take a constitutional amendment. IRV, on the other hand, can be implemented on a state by state basis, and does not require an amendment to any state constitution or the federal constitution.

Thanks for commenting!