The American Political Science Association and a handful of political scientists have decided that political parties are (gulp) threatened and need to be saved. Really?
I think one of the fundamental questions here is: are political parties more like private clubs? Or more like parts of the government?
I think everyone agrees that a private club can elect its leadership however it wants. If my board game club wants to award its presidency to whoever wins an Uno championship, that's fine.
But obviously, the official parts of the government can't do that. My state can't just decide to switch to the "Uno championship" method for picking its governor. In those cases we expect an open, democratic procedure.
And political parties are kind of straddling those two worlds.
> Drutman now says he has “seen the light” and changed his mind [about RCV]
Did Drutman post more details about why he changed his mind anywhere? I really enjoyed "Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop," so I'd be interested to hear his counter-brief against himself.
Yes, Lee and I had a three-part discussion on DemocracySOS, below are the three parts. Also in various interviews that you can find by searching perhaps.
Does Fusion Voting offer a new horizon for US politics? Fusion is enjoying a surge in popularity. But what are its pros and cons?
Yes, here: https://leedrutman.substack.com/p/how-i-updated-my-views-on-ranked but he unfortunately still seems to support it; he just thinks fusion voting and Hare PR are better than single-winner Hare. "I still see a valuable role for RCV in primary elections and local nonpartisan elections".
Thanks Walter. As a teaser for readers who may wish to engage further with this discussion over the importance or primacy of political parties, I will post here your final paragraph:
"One can almost feel lurking behind many of their arguments and admonitions one loud and insistent rumble: If the Republican Party had been stronger, it could have prevented an authoritarian demagogue like Donald Trump from being its candidate for President in 2016. After all, the party leadership had very little use for the guy! Deep discussions of parties can never avoid this crucial–but quite confounding–argument, so “Prioritizing Parties” was a great choice to put as the denouement of this study. But even after turning its final page, the big question is likely to continue to hammer at the reader…or at least it still drums away at me. Suppose the American people want some particular person to be their leader. Let’s say a significant majority likes her more than they do anybody else. And suppose, too, that no party wants this woman to display their banner. Maybe they think she’s a corrupt, stupid, lying, self-serving, anti-democratic autocrat who hates parties and might actually do away with them entirely if given the chance. Now, democracy seems clearly to require that citizens get the leadership they want. But political scientists confidently assure us that democracy has also been found to absolutely require the existence of parties—indeed, strong ones—not only to produce meaningful elections, but for any sort of coherent governance at all. What should one conclude given this dilemma? Scylla or Charybdis? Is there a middle way?"
It seems to me that humans are essentially tribal beings, who try to get along to prevent maximum chaos thru governance structures. For the past century or so, that governance structure has been a version of representative democracy for most countries. Political parties are an expression of that tribalism within the current governance structures of representative democracy. So they are a natural part of the modern-day governance structure, within inherent tension between the parties and the structure because the political parties are self-interested and the governance structure, when it works, is a referee between all the self-interested parties.
I think one of the fundamental questions here is: are political parties more like private clubs? Or more like parts of the government?
I think everyone agrees that a private club can elect its leadership however it wants. If my board game club wants to award its presidency to whoever wins an Uno championship, that's fine.
But obviously, the official parts of the government can't do that. My state can't just decide to switch to the "Uno championship" method for picking its governor. In those cases we expect an open, democratic procedure.
And political parties are kind of straddling those two worlds.
> Drutman now says he has “seen the light” and changed his mind [about RCV]
Did Drutman post more details about why he changed his mind anywhere? I really enjoyed "Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop," so I'd be interested to hear his counter-brief against himself.
Yes, Lee and I had a three-part discussion on DemocracySOS, below are the three parts. Also in various interviews that you can find by searching perhaps.
Does Fusion Voting offer a new horizon for US politics? Fusion is enjoying a surge in popularity. But what are its pros and cons?
https://democracysos.substack.com/p/does-fusion-voting-offer-a-new-horizon
Here is a link to Drutman’s response to my original post:
"Yes, Fusion does offer a new horizon for US Politics."
https://democracysos.substack.com/p/lee-drutman-responds-to-steven-hill
And a link to my response to Drutman
“Fusion yes, but more study of modern-day uses needed.”
https://democracysos.substack.com/p/steven-hill-responds-to-lee-drutman
Yes, here: https://leedrutman.substack.com/p/how-i-updated-my-views-on-ranked but he unfortunately still seems to support it; he just thinks fusion voting and Hare PR are better than single-winner Hare. "I still see a valuable role for RCV in primary elections and local nonpartisan elections".
Just noticed this informative piece. For comparative purposes, here are my own comments and review of that APSA report: https://luckorcunning.blogspot.com/2023/09/wheres-walto-on-new-apsa-study-on.html
https://www.3-16am.co.uk/articles/apsa-presidential-task-force-on-political-parties-more-than-red-and-blue-political-parties-and-american-democracy?c=a-hornbook-of-democracy-book-reviews
Thanks Walter. As a teaser for readers who may wish to engage further with this discussion over the importance or primacy of political parties, I will post here your final paragraph:
"One can almost feel lurking behind many of their arguments and admonitions one loud and insistent rumble: If the Republican Party had been stronger, it could have prevented an authoritarian demagogue like Donald Trump from being its candidate for President in 2016. After all, the party leadership had very little use for the guy! Deep discussions of parties can never avoid this crucial–but quite confounding–argument, so “Prioritizing Parties” was a great choice to put as the denouement of this study. But even after turning its final page, the big question is likely to continue to hammer at the reader…or at least it still drums away at me. Suppose the American people want some particular person to be their leader. Let’s say a significant majority likes her more than they do anybody else. And suppose, too, that no party wants this woman to display their banner. Maybe they think she’s a corrupt, stupid, lying, self-serving, anti-democratic autocrat who hates parties and might actually do away with them entirely if given the chance. Now, democracy seems clearly to require that citizens get the leadership they want. But political scientists confidently assure us that democracy has also been found to absolutely require the existence of parties—indeed, strong ones—not only to produce meaningful elections, but for any sort of coherent governance at all. What should one conclude given this dilemma? Scylla or Charybdis? Is there a middle way?"
Yeah, it's an enigma. To me, parties are like federal structures in being both necessary to and also arguably essentially contrary to democracy.
It seems to me that humans are essentially tribal beings, who try to get along to prevent maximum chaos thru governance structures. For the past century or so, that governance structure has been a version of representative democracy for most countries. Political parties are an expression of that tribalism within the current governance structures of representative democracy. So they are a natural part of the modern-day governance structure, within inherent tension between the parties and the structure because the political parties are self-interested and the governance structure, when it works, is a referee between all the self-interested parties.