UK citizens go to the polls today, and have an opportunity to send a loud message that could be heard across the Atlantic. Dominated for generations by two major parties (Labour and Tories; roughly the equivalent of the Democrats and Republicans), the star of the campaign season has been Nick Clegg of the opposition Liberal Democrats. Should Clegg end up as Prime Minister, it would represent a stunning rejection of the "Coke v. Pepsi" politics that has dominated Britain and the US since, well, the 19th century.
Why the Clegg surge this year? Because he was allowed to participate in national televised debates. Clegg persuasively argued that Labour's Gordon Brown and the Tories David Cameron are merely more business as usual, "making the same promises and breaking the same promises." John Nichols examines the phenomenon here.
Given the British parliamentary system, the odds of Clegg actually becoming PM this year are not great. But whatever the result, his performance has been a wake-up call for the establishment parties. Additionally, it is now clear that in the US, the so-called "Commission on Presidential Debates" must no longer be allowed to exclude legitimate third-party candidates from nationally televised debates.
Another lesson we should learn from the Brits is to shorten our campaign season. The general-election season in Britain is 30 days; less time for the monied interests and political hacks to undermine the process. Also less money wasted on big media advertising and less chance of the voters just getting sick of the candidates.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Unfortunately, Clegg has said if his party doesn't win he will support whichever of the other parties wins the most seats, meaning that he could be the one to give control to the conservatives.
What's wrong with that picture?
It's like if we had a Progressive party running to the left of the Dems, and the GOP won a few more seats than the Dems. Would you expect the Progressives to form a coalition with the Repubs?
I don't follow British politics as closely as I should, but I don't think the analogy is fair. Cameron and the Tories certainly aren't "progressive," but they also don't appear to be wingnuts. Labour, on the other hand, has a shameful record on the economy and enabling the US on Iraq and the "war on terror" since 2003.
My point is that Clegg aligning with Cameron is nothing like an American equivalent aligning with the GOP. (I do think, however, that Clegg shouldn't endorse Cameron without some pledge from the latter in support of electoral reform.).
Speculating about British politics is all well and good. But in this discussion it's worth noting David Sirota's book called "Uprising." Sirota writes for "In These Times" and is also printed in Progressive Populist magazine and elsewhere. "Uprising" shows how third party influence and strategic voting is used in some areas of the US. National media doesn't talk about how the Working People's Party in New York State came to a place of influence at the state level for instance. And this may be more in line with what Clegg is able to do with a substantial vote.
The Sirota book is available through the library system.
This is the Amazon listing:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0307395634/?tag=borders-detail-20
The kind of "fusion" voting allowed in NY (which allows a party like the Working Peoples' Party to place the Democratic Party nominee on the WPP ballot line) was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the 1990s--in one of the worst decisions ever written IMHO.
Background: the national New Party (of which I was a member) created chapters in many states in the 1990s. Fusion (also known as cross-endorsement) was a major element of the party's electoral strategy. The idea was that, for example, the amount of votes a Democrat received on the New Party ballot would allow him or her to know how much support was on "the left." Fusion also eliminates the so-called "spoiler" charge when the third party endorses a major party candidate.
I was personally never a big fan of fusion politics, mostly because I never quite understood how it represented a serious challenge to the two-party corporate duopoly. If the Republicrats are bothered by "spoiling," then they should support Instant Runoff Voting, proportional representation, Borda Count, or something else.
Fusion was tested in the Supreme Court in a case that involved the right of the Minnesota New Party to place Paul Wellstone on their ballot line. The Democrats, hostile to 3rd party activity, did not want Wellstone's name on any other ballot even though the combined total of New Party/Democratic votes would be his.
In what I believe was a 7-2 vote, the Supreme Court said that cross-endorsement fusion "confuses" voters and was therefore unconstitutional. I have not read Sirota's book, but I am sure in it he must discuss the problems with recreating New York's system in the wake of that Court decision. The Republicrat duopoly in Wisconsin, for example, would never allow such a thing.
Thanks for the clarification. It's been a while since I've had the Sirota book open. But the discussion is still worthwhile. "Uprising" was published in 2007. and Sirota now has a call in program on radio someplace. But to the point, does the Constitutionality apply to all elections or just national? And please explain Borda Count.
The current form of uprising which John Nichols supports is defunding big banks by forming state banks such as in North Dakota. This is not a bank run, it's a bank walk... one deposit at a time.
Sirota mentions stock holder votes as another means disrupting the war machine and other corporate endeavors. These are the uprisings that Sirota touches on.
Elsewhere...
Most recently there's the boycott of Arizona by baseball.
Glad the discussion on this is continuing.
First, a correction: The Supreme Court case I mentioned in my previous post dealt with the Twin Cities New Party's endorsement of Democrat Andy Dawkins, NOT Paul Wellstone as I said in the post.
What the Court said in that decision was that laws against fusion do not restrict a political party's First Amendment rights. Elections are state matters, so essentially what the Court said was that State bans on fusion are constitutional.
If Steve Barney is reading this thread, he can cite some sources on the Borda Count. The main proponent of it is professor Donald Saari, a mathematician. Basically, the Borda County is a method of rank voting designed to increase the chances that an election more accurately represents the will of the people. It is contrast to the plurality system (used in the US, England, and many other places) in which the "winner" of an election is often the person opposed by the majority of voters. Wikipedia actually has a very good illustration of the Borda Count which you can see if you search for it.
Here's a good, brief interview with Saari in which he lays out some of the issues:
http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/qanda-with-donald-saari-about-election-math/Content?oid=1211609
Thanks Tony,
I read the Indyweek piece you mentioned above with interest. The comments to the interview are better yet since I knew nothing about "score voting" either.
At least with a new Fairness doctrine there might be slim chance of third parties on the ballot. The Indyweek piece mentions that Borda count depends on (paraphrasing) 'honest well meaning voters.' Targeted voting of one type lost Cynthia McKinney her seat in Congress down in Georgia. But she ran for president and I voted for her. Targeted voting can work for a good and fair election but it can also work against.
In any case the mathematicians' logic on all sides gives a new perspective on how elections fail to prove the will of the majority.
Post a Comment