I want us to have more parties. I also want us to champion a different voting count method. However, unfortunately, a Democratic party schism would threaten the strength of Democrats, what they perceive to stand for, and those values as a whole, as a result potentially leaving a rift or valley into which a united Republican party could storm and overcome in elections. We are damned if we do and damned if we do not due to the entrenched nature of our party system in my opinion.“You may have issue differences within the Democratic Party, but they become irrelevant when confronted by a Republican Party determined to turn elections into cultural conflicts,”
Allow me to translate: "Issues within a party become irrelevant when confronted by a (perceived) opposing party." Also known as why a two-party system becomes a problem. Also known as why the Left and Right are polarized. Basically, even though the Democratic party isn't meeting the needs of some of its members (which should encourage schism), because of the presence of a polarizing force, aka an opposite, an enemy, or nemesis, they group together. -Stanley Greenberg
To be fair, I'm not so sure this wouldn't happen with a >2 party system, either. Factions would still have to group together into a coalitional government if they wanted to get anything done. And then there's still no guarantee that anything would get done. Sometimes the presence of an extra label in and of itself suppresses cooperation as it reinforces ideological differences. e.g. the already present schism w/in Republican circles between moderate ("moderate") Republicans and Tea Party conservatives. If you think the Republican party is any more ideologically monolithic than the Democratic party (or even AS ideologically monolithic), you nuts, _refugee_. Come to think of it, I bet you could make a strong case that we already have a >2 party system. Tea Party & traditional Republicans is more an arranged marriage than a romantic marriage. And there are increasing striae w/in the Tea Party contingent as well, between social conservatives and more traditional right-leaning libertarian types and just flat out crazy people (used to work with a lady that believed she could talk to her cats- she was a proud part of the original Tea Party demonstrations). (That was a low blow but it felt good.) So maybe we're just seeing concurrent greater divisions inside the left as well- everybody's pulling apart. More and more parties attempting coalition under increasingly superficial umbrella labels. Personally, I think it's not so great. In the late nineties, some scholars argued we didn't even have a 2 party system, but rather a 1.5 party system, wherein the differences between the American left and right were less pronounced than elsewhere, and the American public tended to stray towards the center, where the divisions were even fuzzier. Each side talked a lot of game, but both made ideological concessions behind closed doors for the sake of their constituencies and ultimately things trended towards the center. Now what, earmarks have become a dirty word (or are they technically illegal now?) providing disincentive to compromise, legislative fights have become so public and pronounced that nobody can grant any concession for fear of looking like an ideological traitor, huge moneyed interests have put their resources behind the principle of shrinking gov't small enough to "drown in a bathtub," etc. More parties now, less getting done. Forgive the poor writing, I'm tired and no coffee and bluuuuurgh
But, but, but things get done in gov'ts with >2 party systems! ;) Oh, it was funny. I think that we need to be able to compromise, for sure. I think parties provide people with labels that they feel comfortable operating under and thus they feel comfortable expressing certain opinions, and I do think with a 1.5 party or a "blurred party line towards the center" we would see, perhaps, a great deal of "I'm going to just strike for the center" without necessarily encouraging difference or, yes, eventually difference does lead to radicalism, and radicalism is part of the problem here. I don't think we have a >2 party system because I feel like when the rain comes out everyone goes running back for their chosen label. Like, when the fight's fightin', Tea Partiers and old-school Republicans run to their side and stick to it; same with Democrats and new Democrats. I would like to see >2 parties because I would like to feel like I have more of a choice in what I am voting for. However in that case I'd also prefer we vote for people along issues, i.e., "I stand by Elizabeth Warren on women's rights issues," than blanket "You can have this job for 4 years and I just hope/believe that I will agree with you on most of the issues that you encounter in those two/four/six years which by the way could be literally anything." (That was a low blow but it felt good.)
This is why local gov't is your best friend. City/county council positions, mayoral elections, state legislature, every stupid ballot initiative for every boring thing- that's where the hyper-specialized interests find their home. Which is why the freshman member on my city council is a self-proclaimed socialist (whether or not she actually is is another issue). It's also way easier to see the effects of your ideologies play out on a local level. Which can be A) very affirming or at least B) a useful way to test and then revise your ideologies. And with enough local sea change, movements will ripple outward. This, incidentally, is also why conservatives have been pouring so much money into local elections. It's also why it's not just convenient, but especially important to be active locally.
I find that interesting, considering the origins of the Soviet Union. Even the word "soviet" means "local council."This is why local gov't is your best friend.
conservatives have been pouring so much money into local elections