There is a contradiction
at the heart of democratic, representative politics that has coming to mind for
me lately. As voters we are put on a search for candidates who closely align
with our own values while also satisfying our requirements for experience, etc.
This ideal form gets sublimated by the practical realities of a given political
system. In most of the Anglosphere that is done through a first-past-the-post
model. Within FPTP there is an inherent incentive to trend towards two parties
for the sake of efficiency. This is clearly problematic as parties become
overburdened.
I have complained loudly
and often over the shortcomings of FPTP, but the problem I am about to describe
is not unique to it.
The logical end point of a
FPTP system is a two-party system. The two parties compete over the theoretical
political centre while holding onto the appeal of their more radical supporters
on the political fringe, Labour and Conservatives in the UK, Liberals and
Conservatives in Canada, Democrats and Republicans in America, Labour and
Coalition in Australia. The two parties seem to track to one of two directions;
they either go to the extreme ends of the spectrum or smash into the middle. In
so many ways the Republicans and Democrats come from different worlds while in
Canada the Liberals and Conservatives are often indiscernible.
Why does this matter? As
I've discussed in previous pieces people deserve parties and politicians that
speak to their perspective. In Canada social conservatives have no real voice
at the highest levels of government. The Conservatives actively silence their
more right-wing elements, even if that's what constituents wants, or at least a
certain segment of them. Meanwhile many centrist, or moderate Americans, or
left-wing Americans feel they have no one that speaks for them. The limitation
of choices undermines the core notion of representative democracy. If you're a
socialist in a rural area are you supposed to vote the 'left-wing' choice where
in any urban jurisdiction the candidate would be the right-wing candidate?
Referenda is a microcosm
of this problem. A good referendum offers a clear binary choice, but few things
are clear binaries. The Brexit vote is a fine example. Many who voted yes may
have preferred an option that kept the free trade components but granted
greater immigration controls. Binary choices do not allow much nuance.
Before electoral reformers
get on a high horse to deride FPTP I would consider that most PR nations have
two major coalitions composed of several parties. They essentially act as the
big tent parties in a two-party system. Proportional representation has the
benefit of giving voters a direct say on the power of the various factions in
the broader political discourse rather than letting partisans and media sort it
out internally.
It is difficult for me to
look at Clinton and Trump and believe that they represent the two halves of
America, but that is the implication of the political system. I am not sure
what the solution is, but I am inclined to think that proportional
representation serves better results. In heterogeneous societies with diverse
problems and factions I think the two-party system needs to be retired for it
masks political diversity.
No comments:
Post a Comment