Friday, September 30, 2011

Republicans Should Support Third Parties...

...but not vote for them.

The political structure in the United States necessitates a two-party system. With current structures, a third party will either fail or become one of the two parties. However, should the political structure be changed to allow for a third party, the Republican Party would be the primary beneficiary.

The Democrats are a coalition masquerading as a party. Should multiple parties be viable, the uneasy bedfellows in the Democratic Party would split into separate parties, e.g., Greens, Labor, Socialist, a few ethnically-based parties, etc. They would be natural allies, but they would lose the economies of scale as each separate party would have to develop its own structures.

The Republican Party, by contrast, is far more homogeneous. It would probably lose a rump to a revitalized Libertarian Party, and perhaps a new hard right Conservative party would form, but it would easily swallow up the middle of the political spectrum. It could then wheel and deal with the splintered parties around it and dominate American politics for decades to come.

Divide and Conquer.

2 Comments:

Blogger Yoel Natan said...

The US has a two party system because the president and governors and everyone else is elected by a plurality of votes, not necessarily a majority. In other countries, you don't waste your vote by voting for a smaller party because either they have run-offs between the two finalists with the most votes, or else the one with the most votes has to form a coalition government.

I suspect that most of the issues that drive either party will become less important, because the dominant issue will be income inequality, and the root cause which is American un-competitiveness because not enough people are training in industrial arts and engineering and such. When the rich were taxed at 70% of their income, America is competitive. When they are taxed at 17.% to 35% and everyone is on their own to get an education at their own expense, it just doesn't get done. So basically we are headed toward Euro levels of taxation.
---
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130395070

The term wealth inequality refers to the unequal distribution of financial assets among a group of people. In the U.S., the top 20 percent of people have 85 percent of the wealth.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/sep/28/census-data-weddings-in-2009-at-record-low-level/

A different measure, the international Gini index, found U.S. income inequality at its highest level since the Census Bureau began tracking household income in 1967. The U.S. also has the greatest disparity among Western industrialized nations.

12:30 AM  
Blogger Octavo Dia said...

@Yoel Natan

Exactly. The system is set up to encourage two parties. With the current arrangement, if that setup were changed, the Republican Party would dominate the field.


the root cause which is American un-competitiveness because not enough people are training in industrial arts and engineering and such.

Clearly are economic incentives are misaligned. Becoming an engineer is a great way for a foreign to get to the U.S., which increases his standard of living tremendously. For those in the U.S., becoming a entrepreneur or lawyer is a surer route.


When the rich were taxed at 70% of their income, America is competitive.

When half the world was communist and most of the rest recovering from colonialism and WWII, it wasn't hard to achieve a dominate position.

10:03 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home